Shauna Dillon v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan
DecidedJanuary 15, 2026
Docket2:24-cv-13403
StatusUnknown

This text of Shauna Dillon v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc. (Shauna Dillon v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Shauna Dillon v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., (E.D. Mich. 2026).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

SHAUNA DILLON,

Plaintiff, Case No. 2:24-cv-13403

v. Honorable Susan K. DeClercq United States District Judge LJ ROSS ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Defendant. ______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (ECF No. 14) AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 1) In December 2024, Plaintiff Shauna Dillon sued Defendant LJ Ross Associates, Inc (“LJ Ross”) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq., alleging that LJ Ross failed to investigate her identity-theft claims about her credit reports. ECF No. 1. Now after discovery, Dillon moves with LJ Ross’s consent to voluntarily dismiss her suit with prejudice and with the condition that this Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement agreement terms. ECF No. 14. Under Civil Rule 41(a)(2), a plaintiff may request that her action be dismissed “by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). And “[u]nless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Id. Because the parties have agreed to dismiss with prejudice and to the condition about enforcing the settlement agreement, this Court finds the motion’s terms and conditions proper, and it will grant the motion. See generally Kienitz v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 131 F.R.D. 106, 107 (E.D. Mich. 1990) (denying a

motion for voluntary dismissal because the parties did not agree to imposed conditions). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily

Dismiss, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is further ORDERED that this Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of

enforcing the terms of the Parties’ Settlement Agreement only. IT IS SO ORDERED. This is a final order and closes this case.

/s/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ United States District Judge

Dated: January 15, 2026

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

Related

Kienitz v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
131 F.R.D. 106 (E.D. Michigan, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Shauna Dillon v. LJ Ross Associates, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shauna-dillon-v-lj-ross-associates-inc-mied-2026.