Opinion
1:23-cv-01009
03-18-2024
CARL ELMO CLINE PLAINTIFF v. SHARTHAK MUNASIB DEFENDANT
ORDER
Susan O. Hickey, Chief United States District Judge
Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 16. Defendant responded in opposition. ECF No. 18. The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 24, 2023, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 10. On October 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. ECF No. 13. Then, on November 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. ECF No. 16. On November 7, Defendant filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 18. The same day, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 19. On January 9, 2024, Plaintiff's former counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. ECF No. 22. The Court granted that motion and Plaintiff now represents himself pro se. ECF No. 23.
II. DISCUSSION
When “a motion for summary judgment has been filed, an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only upon the order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharms., Inc., 187 F.3d 941, 950 (8th Cir. 1999) (Citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2)). It is within the Court's sound discretion to grant or deny a plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit. See Beavers v. Bretherick, 227 Fed.Appx. 518, 520, 2007 WL 1109940 (8th Cir. 2007). In making its decision, the Court should consider the following factors: “(1) whether the plaintiff has presented a proper explanation for the desire to dismiss; (2) whether the defendant has expended considerable effort and expense in preparing for trial; (3) whether the plaintiff exhibited ‘excessive delay and lack of diligence' in prosecuting the case; and (4) whether the defendant has filed a motion for summary judgment.” Id. (citing Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 783 (8th Cir. 1987)).
Here, Plaintiff states that he “is simply not able to ‘chin the bar' in bringing proof of damages,” and that “there would be no prejudice to the defendant for the granting of this Motion.” ECF Nos. 16, 17. Plaintiff further provides that his deposition has already been taken of which Defendant “would be permitted to use . . . if the matter is re-riled,” and that Defendant already has access to Plaintiff's “workers' compensation claim's history, Social Security Disability history, and medical history.” ECF No. 17. The Court notes that Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and recognizes that Plaintiff and Defendant have both expended effort and expense in preparing this case. However, in light of Plaintiff's pro se status and the small amount of discovery that has been completed at this point in the matter, the Court finds in favor of granting the instant motion. Further, to offset any prejudice towards Defendant, the Court finds that Plaintiff should be required to pay any additional costs Defendant may incur as a result of Plaintiff refiling this matter.
Upon considering the factors regarding whether voluntary dismissal is proper, the Court finds the balance of these factors weighs in favor of the granting of Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) should be and hereby is GRANTED. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, with the condition that if the matter is refiled in any court, Plaintiff will be ordered to pay any additional costs and reasonable attorney's fees that Defendant incurs as a result of refiling. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 10) and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint (ECF No. 13) are hereby DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED