Cato Corp. v. L.A. Printex Indus., Inc.

2 Citing cases

  1. Laughter v. Sims

    1:21 CV 13 MR WCM (W.D.N.C. Apr. 19, 2021)

    . . Rather than a Rule 41 dismissal, the Plaintiff should seek to amend his complaint by meeting the requirements of Rule 15.”) with Cato Corp. v. L.A. Printex Indus., Inc., No. 3:10-CV-00462, 3:10cv543, 2012 WL 2455431 (W.D. N.C. June 27, 2012).

  2. Synovus Bank v. Bokke IV L.L.C.

    CIVIL CASE NO. 1:11-cv-00071-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Feb. 4, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Other decisions within the Western District of North Carolina subsequently have followed Miller and permitted relief similar to the kind which the Bank seeks in the present case. See CatoCorp. v. L.A. Printex Indus., Inc., Case Nos. 3:10-cv-462, 3:10-cv-543, 2012 WL 2455431, at *9 (W.D.N.C. June 27, 2012) (allowing dismissal of certain claims without the filing of an amended complaint); see also Klakulak v. Americahomekey, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-388 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 10, 2012) (ordering dismissal of a defendant where plaintiffs were unable to obtain stipulation from remaining defendants). In accordance with these more recent interpretations of Rule 41, the Court will allow the dismissal of the Kelly Defendants upon the Bank's motion.