Harris v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co.

Full title: MICHAEL HARRIS Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant.

Court: United States District Court, District of Colorado

Date published: Sep 8, 2021

Civil Action 20-cv-03195-RM-MEH (D. Colo. Sep. 8, 2021)

Opinion

Civil Action 20-cv-03195-RM-MEH

09-08-2021

MICHAEL HARRIS Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant.

RAYMOND P. MOORE United States District Judge

ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF'S THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; AND (2) FINDINGS OF LAW PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AND SECOND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

RAYMOND P. MOORE United States District Judge

THIS MATTER is before the Court on (1) Defendant's Motion for Determination of Question of Law (the “Motion”) (ECF 27); and (2) Plaintiff's Withdrawal of Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Determination of Question of Law and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief (the “Withdrawal/Dismissal”) (ECF 31). Aside from withdrawing his opposition to Defendant's Motion, Plaintiff's Withdrawal/Dismissal seeks to voluntarily dismiss one of three claims against Defendant. The Tenth Circuit, however, has stated this is impermissible. See Gobbo Farms & Orchards v. Pool Chem. Co., 81 F.3d 122, 123 (10th Cir. 1996) (Rule 41 “speaks of dismissal of an action, not just a claim within an action. [plaintiff] offers no authority, and we have found none, to support its contention that Rule 41(a) applies to dismissal of less than all claims in an action.”). Nonetheless, upon consideration of the Withdrawal/Dismissal, and to promote the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 1, the Court construes the Withdrawal/Dismissal as an unopposed motion to dismiss, without prejudice, Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief. See Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S.Ct. 1885, 1888-89 (2016) (noting a district court's “inherent power” to “manage its docket and courtroom with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases”). And, after considering Defendant's Motion and Plaintiff's Withdrawal/Dismissal, and being otherwise fully advised, the Court finds sufficient grounds to grant the parties relief.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED

(1) That Plaintiff's Withdrawal/Dismissal (ECF No. 31), construed as a motion, is GRANTED;

(2) That Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief against Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company is dismissed without prejudice; and

(3) That Defendant's Motion for Determination of Question of Law (ECF 27) is GRANTED in that South Dakota law shall apply to the subject action.