Moore v. Management, Analysis, and Utilization, Inc.

N.D. Indiana

Moore v. Management, Analysis, and Utilization, Inc.

DecidedJuly 6, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00248

StatusUnknown

This text of Moore v. Management, Analysis, and Utilization, Inc. (Moore v. Management, Analysis, and Utilization, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Indiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moore v. Management, Analysis, and Utilization, Inc., (N.D. Ind. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

VICKI MOORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-248-HAB ) BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE MOTOR SYSTEMS, ) et al. ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER On June 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) seeking dismissal of Defendant Robert Bosch LLC (ECF No. 13). In the notice, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Robert Bosch LLC was incorrectly named as Bosch Automotive Motor Systems. Aside from the obvious problem that Plaintiff is requesting dismissal of a party that was not named in the Complaint and is therefore not a defendant, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action. The Seventh Circuit has indicated that Rule 41(a) should be used for the limited purpose of dismissing an entire action rather than for dismissal of individual parties or piecemeal claims. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Although some courts have held otherwise, we’ve said that Rule 41(a) does not speak of dismissing one claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing an action— which is to say, the whole case.”) (first quoting Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2001); then citing Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2011)). According to the Seventh Circuit then, Rule 41(a) is not the proper vehicle for dropping individual parties or claims. See Taylor,787 F.3d at 858 n.9. (“The parties indicated that it's common practice in some district courts in this circuit to allow the voluntary dismissal of individual claims under Rule 41(a). If that is true, we remind judges to use Rule 15(a) instead.”). If Plaintiff desires, instead, to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to remove Bosch Automotive Motor Systems, leave is so granted. Plaintiff has until July 20, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Notice of Dismissal as to Defendant Robert Bosch LLC, has no effect and will be termed as a pending motion on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED on July 6, 2023. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

VICKI MOORE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:23-CV-248-HAB ) BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE MOTOR SYSTEMS, ) et al. ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER On June 29, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) seeking dismissal of Defendant Robert Bosch LLC (ECF No. 13). In the notice, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Robert Bosch LLC was incorrectly named as Bosch Automotive Motor Systems. Aside from the obvious problem that Plaintiff is requesting dismissal of a party that was not named in the Complaint and is therefore not a defendant, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action. The Seventh Circuit has indicated that Rule 41(a) should be used for the limited purpose of dismissing an entire action rather than for dismissal of individual parties or piecemeal claims. Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) (“Although some courts have held otherwise, we’ve said that Rule 41(a) does not speak of dismissing one claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing an action— which is to say, the whole case.”) (first quoting Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2001); then citing Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 588 (7th Cir. 2011)). According to the Seventh Circuit then, Rule 41(a) is not the proper vehicle for dropping individual parties or claims. See Taylor,787 F.3d at 858 n.9. (“The parties indicated that it's common practice in some district courts in this circuit to allow the voluntary dismissal of individual claims under Rule 41(a). If that is true, we remind judges to use Rule 15(a) instead.”). If Plaintiff desires, instead, to amend the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) to remove Bosch Automotive Motor Systems, leave is so granted. Plaintiff has until July 20, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Notice of Dismissal as to Defendant Robert Bosch LLC, has no effect and will be termed as a pending motion on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED on July 6, 2023. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moore v. Management, Analysis, and Utilization, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-management-analysis-and-utilization-inc-innd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack