Steward v. Air Liquide Advanced Materials, Inc.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
• Decided: August 31, 2022
• Docket: 1:22-cv-01047
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

KELVIN STEWARD PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:22-cv-01047

AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES U.S. LLC, AIR LIQUIDE LARGE INDUSTRIES U.S. L.P., AIR LIQUIDE ELECTRONICS U.S. L.P., AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED MATERIALS, INC., AIR LIQUIDE ADVANCED MATERIALS, LLC, and AIR LIQUIDE USA LLC DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Kelvin Steward’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff states that Separate Defendants Air Liquide Advanced Technologies U.S. LLC, Air Liquide Large Industries U.S., LP, Air Liquide Electronics U.S., LP, and Air Liquide USA, LLC are not proper parties to this action and asks the Court to dismiss this action without prejudice, insofar as it is against these separate defendants. Plaintiff further states that Defendants Air Liquide Advanced Materials, Inc. and Air Liquide Advanced Materials, LLC, the remaining defendants, do not oppose this motion. Therefore, no response is necessary, and the matter is ripe for consideration. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 governs the dismissal of actions. Plaintiff does not specify whether he seeks dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) or (a)(2), but because Defendants have not yet “serve[d] either an answer or a motion for summary judgment,” the Court assumes that he brings the instant motion pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). Compare Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) (allowing voluntary dismissal without a court order where plaintiff files notice of dismissal prior to opposing party serving either an answer or a motion for summary judgment or where stipulation of dismissal is signed by all parties) with Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8th Cir. 2017) (explaining that “Rule 41(a)(2) dismissals are contested dismissals”). “The effect of a voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) ‘is to render the proceedings a nullity

and leave the parties as is if the action had never been brought.’” Williams v. Clarke, 82 F.3d 270, 273 (8th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted). Upon consideration, the Court finds good cause for the motion (ECF No. 7). The remaining defendants, Air Liquide Advanced Materials, Inc. and Air Liquide Advanced Materials, LLC do not oppose the motion or otherwise argue that they will be prejudiced by the dismissal of Separate Defendants Air Liquide Advanced Technologies U.S. LLC, Air Liquide Large Industries U.S., LP, Air Liquide Electronics U.S., LP, and Air Liquide USA, LLC. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 7) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Separate Defendants Air Liquide Advanced Technologies U.S. LLC, Air Liquide Large Industries U.S., LP, Air Liquide Electronics U.S., LP, and Air Liquide USA, LLC are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 31st day of August, 2022. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge