Republic Services of Indiana v. Coe Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.

N.D. Indiana

Republic Services of Indiana v. Coe Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.

DecidedMarch 28, 2023

Docket1:21-cv-00108

StatusUnknown

This text of Republic Services of Indiana v. Coe Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. (Republic Services of Indiana v. Coe Heating & Air Conditioning, 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

Republic Services of Indiana v. Coe Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., (N.D. Ind. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION

REPUBLIC SERVICES OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-108-HAB ) COE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING. ) INC., AND GAS—FIRED PRODUCTS, INC. ) d/b/a SPACE-RAY ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER On March 22, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Gas-Fired Products, Inc. d/b/a Space-Ray only. (ECF No. 49). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). 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 Gas-Fired Products, Inc. d/b/a Space-Ray, leave is so granted. Plaintiff has until April 14, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Stipulation of Dismissal as to Gas-Fired Products, Inc. d/b/a Space-Ray only (ECF No. 49), has no effect and will be termed as a pending motion on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED on March 28, 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

REPUBLIC SERVICES OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) CASE NO. 1:21-CV-108-HAB ) COE HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING. ) INC., AND GAS—FIRED PRODUCTS, INC. ) d/b/a SPACE-RAY ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER On March 22, 2023, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to Defendant Gas-Fired Products, Inc. d/b/a Space-Ray only. (ECF No. 49). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the terms upon which a plaintiff can voluntarily dismiss an action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). 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 Gas-Fired Products, Inc. d/b/a Space-Ray, leave is so granted. Plaintiff has until April 14, 2023, to file an Amended Complaint.

CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Stipulation of Dismissal as to Gas-Fired Products, Inc. d/b/a Space-Ray only (ECF No. 49), has no effect and will be termed as a pending motion on the Court’s docket. SO ORDERED on March 28, 2023. s/ Holly A. Brady JUDGE HOLLY A. BRADY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Republic Services of Indiana v. Coe Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/republic-services-of-indiana-v-coe-heating-air-conditioning-inc-innd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack