Lakeland West Capital XXI, LLC v. HSHF Properties, LLC

W.D. Arkansas

Lakeland West Capital XXI, LLC v. HSHF Properties, LLC

DecidedFebruary 19, 2020

Docket6:20-cv-06008

StatusUnknown

This text of Lakeland West Capital XXI, LLC v. HSHF Properties, LLC (Lakeland West Capital XXI, LLC v. HSHF Properties, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lakeland West Capital XXI, LLC v. HSHF Properties, LLC, (W.D. Ark. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL XXI, LLC PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:20-cv-6008

HSHF PROPERTIES, LLC; HOT SPRINGS HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.; GRADY BEAN; DORA BEAN; FFC, LLC d/b/a/ FIRST CAPITAL; STATE OF ARKANSAS; ARVEST BANK; and STATE OF ARKANSAS, COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (ECF No. 16). The Court finds that no response is necessary and that the matter is ripe for consideration. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion and informs the Court that the parties resolved the issues in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).1 An action may be dismissed by court order at Plaintiff’s request, on terms the Court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should

1 Plaintiff could have also filed a notice of dismissal because Defendants have not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A notice of dismissal is self-executing and would require no action or approval from the court. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Hoeffel, 907 F.2d 861, 863-64 (8th Cir. 1990). Although some courts construe Rule 41 motions for voluntary dismissal as self-executing notices despite being styled as a motion, see, e.g., Ventura-Vera v. Dewitt, 417 Fed. App’x 591, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011), Plaintiff specifically invoked Rule 41(a)(2), so the Court will analyze the instant motion under that framework. not be granted if a party will be prejudiced by the dismissal.” Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8th Cir. 2017). Upon consideration, the Court sees no good reason to deny the instant motion. No party will be prejudiced by the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 16) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of February, 2020. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey 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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL XXI, LLC PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:20-cv-6008

HSHF PROPERTIES, LLC; HOT SPRINGS HEALTH AND FITNESS, INC.; GRADY BEAN; DORA BEAN; FFC, LLC d/b/a/ FIRST CAPITAL; STATE OF ARKANSAS; ARVEST BANK; and STATE OF ARKANSAS, COMMISSIONER OF STATE LANDS DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (ECF No. 16). The Court finds that no response is necessary and that the matter is ripe for consideration. On January 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed this action. On February 19, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant motion and informs the Court that the parties resolved the issues in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).1 An action may be dismissed by court order at Plaintiff’s request, on terms the Court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should

1 Plaintiff could have also filed a notice of dismissal because Defendants have not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). A notice of dismissal is self-executing and would require no action or approval from the court. Safeguard Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Hoeffel, 907 F.2d 861, 863-64 (8th Cir. 1990). Although some courts construe Rule 41 motions for voluntary dismissal as self-executing notices despite being styled as a motion, see, e.g., Ventura-Vera v. Dewitt, 417 Fed. App’x 591, 591-92 (8th Cir. 2011), Plaintiff specifically invoked Rule 41(a)(2), so the Court will analyze the instant motion under that framework. not be granted if a party will be prejudiced by the dismissal.” Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8th Cir. 2017). Upon consideration, the Court sees no good reason to deny the instant motion. No party will be prejudiced by the dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 16) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 19th day of February, 2020. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lakeland West Capital XXI, LLC v. HSHF Properties, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lakeland-west-capital-xxi-llc-v-hshf-properties-llc-arwd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack