Carney v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

S.D. Alabama

Carney v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc.

DecidedAugust 14, 2020

Docket1:19-cv-01073

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Carney v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., (S.D. Ala. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHERYL CARNEY, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-1073-TFM-MU-C : BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, : INC., et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER On August 14, 2020, this matter came before the undersigned for a telephonic hearing for Plaintiff to show cause why she failed to attend a previous court setting and inform the Court whether she intends to proceed with her claims in this matter and whether she has retained new counsel. See Doc. 28. Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants appeared at the hearing at which Plaintiff informed the Court she does not intend to pursue her claims in this matter. The Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the action without an order of the court “by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment” or “a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A). A request to dismiss an action requires a court order and dismissal by terms the court considers “proper” if Rule 41(a)(1) does not apply. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). In the case at hand, not all of the parties who have appeared in this action have signed a stipulation of dismissal and Defendants have filed an answer (Doc. 7). Therefore, the Court considers the Plaintiff’s oral notice to be a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “The decision to grant or deny a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss an action without prejudice is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court; thus, a plaintiff holds no right to such dismissal.” In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fisher v. P.R. Marine Mgmt., Inc., 940 F.2d 1502, 1503 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). In the case at hand, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s notice for the reasons

that she stated on the record. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s claims in this matter are DISMISSED without prejudice with each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. DONE and ORDERED this the 14th day of August 2020. 18tyh s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHERYL CARNEY, : : Plaintiff, : : vs. : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-cv-1073-TFM-MU-C : BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, : INC., et al., : : Defendants. :

ORDER On August 14, 2020, this matter came before the undersigned for a telephonic hearing for Plaintiff to show cause why she failed to attend a previous court setting and inform the Court whether she intends to proceed with her claims in this matter and whether she has retained new counsel. See Doc. 28. Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants appeared at the hearing at which Plaintiff informed the Court she does not intend to pursue her claims in this matter. The Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss the action without an order of the court “by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment” or “a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A). A request to dismiss an action requires a court order and dismissal by terms the court considers “proper” if Rule 41(a)(1) does not apply. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). In the case at hand, not all of the parties who have appeared in this action have signed a stipulation of dismissal and Defendants have filed an answer (Doc. 7). Therefore, the Court considers the Plaintiff’s oral notice to be a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “The decision to grant or deny a [Fed. R. Civ. P.] 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss an action without prejudice is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court; thus, a plaintiff holds no right to such dismissal.” In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1259 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Fisher v. P.R. Marine Mgmt., Inc., 940 F.2d 1502, 1503 (11th Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). In the case at hand, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Plaintiff’s notice for the reasons

that she stated on the record. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED Plaintiff’s claims in this matter are DISMISSED without prejudice with each party to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. DONE and ORDERED this the 14th day of August 2020. 18tyh s/Terry F. Moorer TERRY F. MOORER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Carney v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carney-v-bp-exploration-production-inc-alsd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack