Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 03-2199-CM
February 18, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
The plaintiffs in this action are employee benefit plans within the meaning of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and fiduciaries of those plans. This action was brought to recover from the defendant overpayments allegedly due and owing the plaintiffs, pursuant to §§ 502 and 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132 and 1109. On July 17, 2003, defendant appeared, pro se, and filed an Answer to plaintiffs' Complaint. Defendant's Answer is the only pleading on record which defendant has filed in this case.
Plaintiffs proffer that the parties reached an agreement to settle this matter. As of October 31, 2003, the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant has been satisfied in full. In an attempt to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii), plaintiffs' counsel prepared a Stipulation of Dismissal, and submitted it to the defendant by correspondence dated November 19, 2003. Defendant has since failed and refused to sign the Stipulation of Dismissal. Plaintiffs now move for dismissal of this case with prejudice (Doc. 13).
Rule 41(a)(2) requires a court to review a motion by a plaintiff to dismiss a complaint if the action has proceeded beyond service of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) ("[A]n action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper."). The purpose of the rule is "primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of curative conditions." Clark v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 1407, 1411 (10th Cir. 1993) (quotation omitted). When considering a motion to dismiss, "the important aspect is whether the opposing party will suffer prejudice in the light of the valid interests of the parties. It is the prejudice to the opposing party, rather than the convenience of the court, that is to be considered in passing on a motion for dismissal." Id.
The Tenth Circuit has declined to adopt a rule that the district court must grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2) where the dismissal will be with prejudice. County of Santa Fe v. Public Serv. Co. of New Mexico, 311 F.3d 1031, 1049 (10th Cir. 2002). The Tenth Circuit, however, recognized that, "[in] most cases, the normal analysis will result in the district court granting the plaintiffs motion to dismiss with prejudice." Id. The court went on: "But there will be circumstances where granting a plaintiff's motion to dismiss with prejudice may adversely affect the defendant or, more likely, other parties to the litigation. . . . The instant case is an example of the rare circumstance where dismissal with prejudice of a plaintiff's claims would adversely impact another party to the litigation and, correlatively, why we should reject [the mandatory rule of dismissal]."
Some courts have held that it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to deny a plaintiff's motion for dismissal with prejudice. See Smoot v. Fox, 340 F.2d 301, 302-03 (6th Cir. 1964) ("Dismissal of an action with prejudice is a complete adjudication of the issues presented by the pleadings and is a bar to a further action between the parties. An adjudication in favor of the defendants, by court or jury, can rise no higher than this."); see also Shepard v. Egan, 767 F. Supp. 1158, 1165 (D. Mass. 1990) ("[I]t is difficult, both practically and logistically, to imagine a court denying a plaintiff's motion to dismiss her own action with prejudice.").
In the instant case, all plaintiffs to the action request dismissal, and there are no other named defendants. Accordingly, dismissal of this action would not adversely impact another party to the litigation. The court also considers that this litigation is in its early stages and, as a result, defendant has put forth relatively little time and effort into this proceeding. The court concludes that plaintiffs are entitled to dismissal, with prejudice, of this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Order of Dismissal (Doc. 13) is granted. This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.