From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Suel v. Red River Waste Sols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Aug 25, 2020
Cause No. 1:20-cv-244-HAB (N.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2020)

Opinion

Cause No. 1:20-cv-244-HAB

08-25-2020

CHARLES SUEL, Plaintiff, v. RED RIVER WASTE SOLUTIONS LP, RED RIVER WASTE SOLUTIONS GP, LLC, Defendants.


ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on a Notice of Dismissal (ECF No. 8), filed on August 3, 2020. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which parties can voluntarily dismiss an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The Seventh Circuit has indicated that Rule 41(a) should be used for the limited purpose of dismissing an entire action rather than for dismissal of individual parties or piecemeal claims. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) ("Although some courts have held otherwise, we've said that Rule 41(a) does not speak of dismissing one claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing an action—which is to say, the whole case.") (citation and internal quotations marks omitted)). According to the Seventh Circuit, Rule 41(a) is not the proper vehicle for dropping individual parties or claims; instead, courts should allow a plaintiff to amend his complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Id.

The Taylor case involved Rule 41(a)(2) instead of 41(a)(1), but the court specifically noted that "both provisions refer exclusively to 'actions'—which, as Berthold Types said, means the entire case." Taylor, 787 F.3d at 857 (citing Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2001) and Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2011)). --------

In light of Taylor, the Court will sua sponte GRANT the Plaintiff leave to amend his Complaint for the limited purpose of revising it to reflect the dismissal of the various claims as outlined in the Notice. The Court DIRECTS the Plaintiff to file the amendment by September 14, 2020. Once the Plaintiff's amended complaint has been filed, the Notice will be deemed moot because an amended complaint controls once it is filed, and the prior pleading will be withdrawn by operation of law. See Johnson v. Dossey, 515 F.3d 778, 780 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Duda v. Bd. of Educ. of Franklin Park Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 84, 133 F.3d 1054, 1057 (7th Cir. 1998).

SO ORDERED on August 25, 2020.

s/ Holly A. Brady

JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Summaries of

Suel v. Red River Waste Sols.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
Aug 25, 2020
Cause No. 1:20-cv-244-HAB (N.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2020)
Case details for

Suel v. Red River Waste Sols.

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES SUEL, Plaintiff, v. RED RIVER WASTE SOLUTIONS LP, RED RIVER WASTE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

Date published: Aug 25, 2020

Citations

Cause No. 1:20-cv-244-HAB (N.D. Ind. Aug. 25, 2020)