Black v. Reem Inc.

S.D. Ohio

Black v. Reem Inc.

DecidedJune 22, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-01165

StatusUnknown

This text of Black v. Reem Inc. (Black v. Reem Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Black v. Reem Inc., (S.D. Ohio 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERROR □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO a EASTERN DIVISION 2022 JUN 22 □□ □□

Carl L. Black, Civil Action 2:21 :¢v-1965.()|.JMBUS Plaintiff, Judge Michael H. Watson V. Magistrate Judge Deavers Reem, Inc., et. al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Carl L. Black (“Plaintiff”) filed a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) seeking to dismiss all of its claims against Reem, Inc. (“Reem”), one of three defendants in this case. ECF No. 30. Rule 41 is not the proper vehicle to accomplish Plaintiff's task, however. Rule 41 is an avenue for dismissing an action; it is not the proper vehicle for dismissing less than all claims against all defendants. Rather, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has suggested “that dismissal of a party, rather than of an entire action, is more proper pursuant to Rule 21.” AmSouth Bank v. Dale, 386 F.3d 763, 778 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Letherer v. Alger Group, L.L.C., 328 F.3d 262, 265—66 (6th Cir. 2003), recognized as overruled on other grounds in Blackburn v. Oaktree Capital Mgmt, LLC, 511 F.3d 633, 636 (6th Cir. 2008)); see also Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961) (“Rule 41(a)(1) provides for the

voluntary dismissal of an ‘action’ not a ‘claim’. . . . [Rule 21] is the one under which any action to eliminate [individual defendants] should be taken.”); see a/so Miller v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 3:13—cv—90, 2014 WL 7330744, at *1 (S.D. Ohio, July 17, 2014) (construing a Rule 41(a) stipulated voluntary dismissal of less than all defendants “as two joint, unopposed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21”). Rule 21 permits the Court, “[o]n motion or on its own, ... on just terms, [to] add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Thus, as Plaintiff seeks to dismiss all of its claims against only Reem, the more appropriate course is to move pursuant to Rule 21 to drop Reem as a party. For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes Plaintiff's stipulation of voluntary dismissal as a motion to drop Reem pursuant to Rule 21, GRANTS the same, and terminates Reem as a party in this suit WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff also filed an agreed dismissal order, signed by Plaintiff and Defendants SBWay Logistics Inc. and Mohammad Alkhatib. ECF No. 31. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this agreement is self- executing. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. )) [ Whe MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:21-cv-1165 Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ERROR □□□ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO a EASTERN DIVISION 2022 JUN 22 □□ □□

Carl L. Black, Civil Action 2:21 :¢v-1965.()|.JMBUS Plaintiff, Judge Michael H. Watson V. Magistrate Judge Deavers Reem, Inc., et. al., Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER Carl L. Black (“Plaintiff”) filed a stipulated dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) seeking to dismiss all of its claims against Reem, Inc. (“Reem”), one of three defendants in this case. ECF No. 30. Rule 41 is not the proper vehicle to accomplish Plaintiff's task, however. Rule 41 is an avenue for dismissing an action; it is not the proper vehicle for dismissing less than all claims against all defendants. Rather, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has suggested “that dismissal of a party, rather than of an entire action, is more proper pursuant to Rule 21.” AmSouth Bank v. Dale, 386 F.3d 763, 778 (6th Cir. 2004) (citing Letherer v. Alger Group, L.L.C., 328 F.3d 262, 265—66 (6th Cir. 2003), recognized as overruled on other grounds in Blackburn v. Oaktree Capital Mgmt, LLC, 511 F.3d 633, 636 (6th Cir. 2008)); see also Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961) (“Rule 41(a)(1) provides for the

voluntary dismissal of an ‘action’ not a ‘claim’. . . . [Rule 21] is the one under which any action to eliminate [individual defendants] should be taken.”); see a/so Miller v. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc., No. 3:13—cv—90, 2014 WL 7330744, at *1 (S.D. Ohio, July 17, 2014) (construing a Rule 41(a) stipulated voluntary dismissal of less than all defendants “as two joint, unopposed motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21”). Rule 21 permits the Court, “[o]n motion or on its own, ... on just terms, [to] add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Thus, as Plaintiff seeks to dismiss all of its claims against only Reem, the more appropriate course is to move pursuant to Rule 21 to drop Reem as a party. For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes Plaintiff's stipulation of voluntary dismissal as a motion to drop Reem pursuant to Rule 21, GRANTS the same, and terminates Reem as a party in this suit WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff also filed an agreed dismissal order, signed by Plaintiff and Defendants SBWay Logistics Inc. and Mohammad Alkhatib. ECF No. 31. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this agreement is self- executing. The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. )) [ Whe MICHAEL H. WATSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 2:21-cv-1165 Page 2 of 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Black v. Reem Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/black-v-reem-inc-ohsd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack