Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P.

W.D. Tennessee

Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P.

DecidedJuly 10, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-02631

StatusUnknown

This text of Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P. (Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P., (W.D. Tenn. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION DEMATIC CORP., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

) HELEN OF TROY, L.P., STEEL No. 2:25-cv-02631-SHL-tmp ) TECHNOLOGY, LLC, and FAYETTE ) COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ) BOARD OF FAYETTE COUNTY, ) TENNESSEE, ) Defendant. )

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT FAYETTE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF FAYETTE COUNTY, TENNESSEE (“FAYETTE COUNTY”) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT FAYETTE COUNTY’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff Dematic Corp. and Defendants Helen of Troy, L.P., Steel Technology, LLC, and Fayette County Industrial Development Board of Fayette County, Tennessee (“Fayette County”) filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to only Defendant Fayette County. (ECF No. 19.) The parties moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Id. at PageID 2184.) However, in multi-defendant matters, “Rule 21 provides the appropriate basis for dismissal of a single defendant,” not Rule 41. Henderson-Thompson v. Jardoin, No. 2:22-cv-2013-MSN-cgc, 2022 WL 349896, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2022) (citing Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961)). The Court will therefore construe the joint stipulation as a motion to dismiss under Rule 21, which permits a court to drop a party at any time on motion or on its own. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Dropping parties under Rule 21 functions as a dismissal of the party. See id. Therefore, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Fayette County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This dismissal does not apply to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Helen of Troy, L.P. and Steel Technology, LLC. Additionally, Defendant Fayette County had previously filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 8) and Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 10). Because that Defendant has been

dismissed, both of its motions to dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2025.

s/Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF 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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION DEMATIC CORP., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. )

) HELEN OF TROY, L.P., STEEL No. 2:25-cv-02631-SHL-tmp ) TECHNOLOGY, LLC, and FAYETTE ) COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ) BOARD OF FAYETTE COUNTY, ) TENNESSEE, ) Defendant. )

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT FAYETTE COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF FAYETTE COUNTY, TENNESSEE (“FAYETTE COUNTY”) WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT FAYETTE COUNTY’S MOTIONS TO DISMISS

On July 10, 2025, Plaintiff Dematic Corp. and Defendants Helen of Troy, L.P., Steel Technology, LLC, and Fayette County Industrial Development Board of Fayette County, Tennessee (“Fayette County”) filed a joint stipulation of dismissal without prejudice as to only Defendant Fayette County. (ECF No. 19.) The parties moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (Id. at PageID 2184.) However, in multi-defendant matters, “Rule 21 provides the appropriate basis for dismissal of a single defendant,” not Rule 41. Henderson-Thompson v. Jardoin, No. 2:22-cv-2013-MSN-cgc, 2022 WL 349896, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 4, 2022) (citing Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961)). The Court will therefore construe the joint stipulation as a motion to dismiss under Rule 21, which permits a court to drop a party at any time on motion or on its own. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Dropping parties under Rule 21 functions as a dismissal of the party. See id. Therefore, all of Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Fayette County are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This dismissal does not apply to Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Helen of Troy, L.P. and Steel Technology, LLC. Additionally, Defendant Fayette County had previously filed motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) (ECF No. 8) and Rule 12(b)(1) (ECF No. 10). Because that Defendant has been

dismissed, both of its motions to dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED this 10th day of July, 2025.

s/Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dematic Corp. v. Helen of Troy, L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dematic-corp-v-helen-of-troy-lp-tnwd-2025.