Privette v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC

E.D. North Carolina

Privette v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina

DecidedJuly 17, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00287

StatusUnknown

This text of Privette v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC (Privette v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Privette v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC, (E.D.N.C. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00287-M MATTHEW PRIVETTE, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER AT&T INC; AT&T ENTERPRISES, LLC; and ) BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, | ) LLC d/b/a AT&T NORTH CAROLINA, ) Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on a Stipulation of Dismissal of AT&T Inc. Only Without Prejudice [DE 18]. The parties seek to dismiss only one Defendant, AT&T Inc., from this case. Typically, to remove a defendant from a civil action, a plaintiff should seek amendment of the operative pleading pursuant to Rule 15; however, as the present request is stipulated and because the standards governing Rule 15 and Rule 41(a) are not inconsistent as applied here, the court will address whether the requested dismissal is proper. Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to dismiss an “action” upon a “stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties.”! In ruling on a motion seeking dismissal under Rule 41 (a), the Fourth Circuit instructs that the primary consideration is whether the defendant suffers prejudice; in fact, such motion should not be denied absent a showing of “legal” or “unfair” prejudice to the defendant. See Ellett Brothers, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar.

' Rule 15 provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Co., 275 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987) (“The purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is freely to allow voluntary dismissals unless the parties will be unfairly prejudiced.”). Here, AT&T Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims against it (DE 15, 16), which remains pending, and the company has proffered no argument concerning whether it will suffer prejudice under these circumstances? and the court discerns none. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against AT&T Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to remove AT&T Inc. from the caption of this case. The pending Motion to Dismiss [DE 15, 16] is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED this _ jz _ day of July, 2025. ced 2 □□□ yews RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Therefore, the court need not consider factors that “may bear on whether the defendant will suffer legal prejudice by a dismissal.” See Tingling v. OCAHO, No. 21-1945, 2023 WL 3221738, at *2 (4th Cir. May 3, 2023); Fid. Bank PLC v. N. Fox Shipping N.V., 242 F. App’x 84, 89 (4th Cir. 2007).

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Case No. 5:25-CV-00287-M MATTHEW PRIVETTE, ) Plaintiff, V. ORDER AT&T INC; AT&T ENTERPRISES, LLC; and ) BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, | ) LLC d/b/a AT&T NORTH CAROLINA, ) Defendants.

This matter comes before the court on a Stipulation of Dismissal of AT&T Inc. Only Without Prejudice [DE 18]. The parties seek to dismiss only one Defendant, AT&T Inc., from this case. Typically, to remove a defendant from a civil action, a plaintiff should seek amendment of the operative pleading pursuant to Rule 15; however, as the present request is stipulated and because the standards governing Rule 15 and Rule 41(a) are not inconsistent as applied here, the court will address whether the requested dismissal is proper. Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the court to dismiss an “action” upon a “stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties.”! In ruling on a motion seeking dismissal under Rule 41 (a), the Fourth Circuit instructs that the primary consideration is whether the defendant suffers prejudice; in fact, such motion should not be denied absent a showing of “legal” or “unfair” prejudice to the defendant. See Ellett Brothers, Inc. v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar.

' Rule 15 provides that a court “should freely give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a).

Co., 275 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir. 2001); see also Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987) (“The purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is freely to allow voluntary dismissals unless the parties will be unfairly prejudiced.”). Here, AT&T Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims against it (DE 15, 16), which remains pending, and the company has proffered no argument concerning whether it will suffer prejudice under these circumstances? and the court discerns none. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against AT&T Inc. are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and the Clerk of the Court is directed to remove AT&T Inc. from the caption of this case. The pending Motion to Dismiss [DE 15, 16] is DENIED as moot.

SO ORDERED this _ jz _ day of July, 2025. ced 2 □□□ yews RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2 Therefore, the court need not consider factors that “may bear on whether the defendant will suffer legal prejudice by a dismissal.” See Tingling v. OCAHO, No. 21-1945, 2023 WL 3221738, at *2 (4th Cir. May 3, 2023); Fid. Bank PLC v. N. Fox Shipping N.V., 242 F. App’x 84, 89 (4th Cir. 2007).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Privette v. AT&T Enterprises, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/privette-v-att-enterprises-llc-nced-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack