Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 683 Health and Welfare Plan v. Whalen Electric LLC

S.D. Ohio

Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 683 Health and Welfare Plan v. Whalen Electric LLC

DecidedMay 30, 2024

Docket1:24-cv-00019

StatusUnknown

This text of Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 683 Health and Welfare Plan v. Whalen Electric LLC (Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 683 Health and Welfare Plan v. Whalen Electric LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 683 Health and Welfare Plan v. Whalen Electric LLC, (S.D. Ohio 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL =: ~— Case No. 1:24-cv-19 BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 683 HEALTH : Judge Matthew W. McFarland AND WELFARE PLAN, et al., ; Plaintiffs, : WHALEN ELECTRICAL LLC, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 8)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), wherein Plaintiffs move to dismiss their claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request [] by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this [subsection] is without prejudice.” Id. “[T]he purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to protect the nonmovant, here the defendants, from unfair treatment.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ’g, Inc., 583 F.3d 948, 953 (6th Cir. 2009). A district court will abuse its discretion by granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) only if “the defendant would suffer plain legal prejudice as a result of a dismissal without prejudice, as opposed to

facing the mere prospect of a lawsuit.” Grover by Grover v. Eli Lilly and Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). As Defendant does not oppose the dismissal of the action without prejudice, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is proper. Additionally, Rule 41(a)(2) allows for “the payment of costs incurred by a defendant” as a condition of dismissal without prejudice. Bridgeport Music, 583 F.3d at 954. The award of costs and attorneys’ fees for a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is discretionary. DWG Corp. v. Granada Invs., Inc., 962 F.2d 1201, 1202 (6th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs request that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. (Motion, Doc. 8-1, Pg. ID 123.) Defendant does not oppose. (See Motion, Doc. 8, Pg. ID 121.) Taking this into consideration, the Court finds that awarding attorneys’ fees and costs is not warranted as a condition of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Each party SHALL bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs; and 4, This case is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WM enh, Weston By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION - CINCINNATI TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL =: ~— Case No. 1:24-cv-19 BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL NO. 683 HEALTH : Judge Matthew W. McFarland AND WELFARE PLAN, et al., ; Plaintiffs, : WHALEN ELECTRICAL LLC, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 8)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), wherein Plaintiffs move to dismiss their claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request [] by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this [subsection] is without prejudice.” Id. “[T]he purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to protect the nonmovant, here the defendants, from unfair treatment.” Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ’g, Inc., 583 F.3d 948, 953 (6th Cir. 2009). A district court will abuse its discretion by granting a motion to dismiss without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) only if “the defendant would suffer plain legal prejudice as a result of a dismissal without prejudice, as opposed to

facing the mere prospect of a lawsuit.” Grover by Grover v. Eli Lilly and Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). As Defendant does not oppose the dismissal of the action without prejudice, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is proper. Additionally, Rule 41(a)(2) allows for “the payment of costs incurred by a defendant” as a condition of dismissal without prejudice. Bridgeport Music, 583 F.3d at 954. The award of costs and attorneys’ fees for a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal is discretionary. DWG Corp. v. Granada Invs., Inc., 962 F.2d 1201, 1202 (6th Cir. 1992). Plaintiffs request that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. (Motion, Doc. 8-1, Pg. ID 123.) Defendant does not oppose. (See Motion, Doc. 8, Pg. ID 121.) Taking this into consideration, the Court finds that awarding attorneys’ fees and costs is not warranted as a condition of dismissal. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED; 2. Plaintiffs’ claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. Each party SHALL bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs; and 4, This case is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WM enh, Weston By: JUDGE MATTHEW W. McFARLAND

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Trustees of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 683 Health and Welfare Plan v. Whalen Electric LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trustees-of-the-international-brotherhood-of-electrical-workers-local-no-ohsd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack