Williams v. Camden II Operations, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Arkansas
DecidedAugust 13, 2018
Docket1:18-cv-01028
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Camden II Operations, LLC (Williams v. Camden II Operations, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Williams v. Camden II Operations, LLC, (W.D. Ark. 2018).

Opinion

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

JACQUELINE WILLIAMS, as Special Adminstrator of the Estate of Autry Lee Sams, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Autry Lee Sams PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 1:18-cv-1028

CAMDEN II OPERATIONS, LLC d/b/a/ Pine Hills Health and Rehabilitation Center, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal as to Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie. (ECF No. 26). Defendants have not responded, and their time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 7.2(b). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss her claims against Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Rule 41 governs the dismissal of actions. Rule 41(a) expressly provides for the voluntary dismissal of an action by the plaintiff or by court order in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed by court order at the plaintiff’s request, on terms the court considers proper. “Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should not be granted if a party will be prejudiced by the dismissal.” Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8th Cir. 2017). Upon consideration, the Court finds that good cause for the motion has been shown. Defendants do not argue that they will be prejudiced by the dismissal of Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie, and the Court therefore finds that no prejudice would occur. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 26) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of August, 2018. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey United States District Judge

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

Related

Adams v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co.
863 F.3d 1069 (Eighth Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Camden II Operations, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-camden-ii-operations-llc-arwd-2018.