Doherty v. Northeast Rehab. Hosp.
This text of Doherty v. Northeast Rehab. Hosp. (Doherty v. Northeast Rehab. Hosp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Doherty v. Northeast Rehab. Hosp. CV-96-161-SD 12/11/96
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Neale Doherty
v. Civil No. 96-161-SD
Northeast Rehabilitation Hospital; Neuro-Rehab. Association, Inc.; U.C. Consultants
O R D E R
This civil action arises from plaintiff Neale Doherty's
termination from his job at defendant Northeast Rehabilitation
Hospital. His complaint contains two counts: (1) violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117,
and (2) wrongful discharge under state law.
Presently before the court is defendant's motion to dismiss
the wrongful discharge claim (document 8) and plaintiff's motion
for voluntary dismissal of that count without prejudice (document
10). The parties have filed objections to both motions.
Background
Doherty held various positions at defendant Northeast
Rehabilitation Hospital between September 1988 and August 5, 1993. Complaint 5 12. During the course of his employment,
Doherty underwent a quadruple bypass heart operation and a heart
catheterization, requiring him to miss work on two occasions.
Id. at 55 14, 17. In June of 1993, Doherty's supervisor informed
him that because some of the night nurses had seen him out of
breath, he would need to get a note from his doctor before he
could return to work. Id. 5 19. Doherty returned to work with a
doctor's note which stated that he must avoid heavy duties
pending the results of an Exercise Tolerance Test. Id. 5 21.
The Hospital terminated Doherty on August 5. Id. 5 25.
Discussion
Presumably anticipating that the court would have granted
defendant's motion to dismiss Count II, wrongful discharge,
plaintiff has moved for voluntary partial dismissal of that claim
without prejudice.
Rule 41(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., which concerns when a court
can grant a motion for voluntary dismissal, provides.
Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of this rule, an action should not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court seems proper. . . . Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prej udice.
The court should permit dismissal under this rule unless it finds
2 that legal prejudice will befall the defendant. See Trinidad-
Delgado v. SK & F Lab Co., 992 F.2d 1, 2 (1st Cir. 1993); Puerto
Rico Maritime Shipping Auth. v. Leith, 668 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir.
1981). The showing of prejudice should go beyond the mere
prospect of a second lawsuit. See Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping
Auth., supra, 668 F.2d at 50; 9W r i g h t & M i ll er, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 2364, at 280 (1995) .
In its objection, defendant argues that the claim should be
dismissed with prejudice. In support thereof, defendant argues
that plaintiff should not be allowed "two bites at the apple,"
particularly as the claim is plainly barred under a recent
opinion of the First Circuit. Given that defendant has simply
argued that it should be spared the prospect of a second lawsuit,
it has not sufficiently shown prejudice. Furthermore, themere
fact that defendant has filed a motion to dismiss does not
preclude the court from granting plaintiff's motion for voluntary
dismissal without prejudice. C f . Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping
Auth., supra, 668 F.2d at 50 ("district court did not err in
addressing the plaintiff's motion under Rule 41(a) (2) without
regard to the defendants' pending motion to dismiss").
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the court grants plaintiff's
motion for voluntary partial dismissal without prejudice of Count
3 II (wrongful discharge) (document 10). As a conseguence,
defendant's motion to dismiss Count II (document 8) is denied as
moot.
SO ORDERED.
Shane Devine, Senior Judge United States District Court
December 11, 1996
cc: Vincent A. Wenners, Jr., Esg. Eleanor H. MacLellan, Esg.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Doherty v. Northeast Rehab. Hosp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doherty-v-northeast-rehab-hosp-nhd-1996.