Williams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

S.D. Ohio

Williams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

DecidedNovember 16, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00595

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Williams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America) 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

Williams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, (S.D. Ohio 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION RUTH ANN WILLIAMS, : Case No. 1:21-cv-595 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : vs. : : THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE : COMPANY OF AMERICA : : and : : CHCS SERVICES, INC. Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Notice of Partial Dismissal of Counts III and IV.” (Doc. 18). Plaintiff purports to voluntarily dismiss Counts III and IV of her Amended Complaint, (Doc. 9), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 41 permits plaintiffs to “dismiss an action without a court order by filing … a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis supplied). In the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs may only use a Rule 41 notice to dismiss the entire controversy, not a portion of the claims. Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961). A Rule 41 notice purporting to dismiss only certain claims is therefore ineffective. See, e.g., Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, No. CV 5:15-130-KKC, 2016 WL 2939150, at *4 (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2016). Where plaintiffs seek to dismiss only some of their claims, the appropriate procedural vehicle is an amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; see Barrientos v. UT-

Battelle, LLC, 284 F. Supp. 2d 908, 916 (S.D. Ohio 2003). For that reason, courts often, in their discretion, construe a Rule 41 notice that purports “to dispose of fewer than all claims against a defendant” as a Rule 15 motion for leave to amend. Baker v. City of Detroit, 217 F. App’x 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s “notice” as a motion for leave to amend under Rule 15. Courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Such is the case here. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Consistent with Rule 15(a)(3), Defendants shall have 14 days to respond to the Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 11/16/2021 s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION RUTH ANN WILLIAMS, : Case No. 1:21-cv-595 : Plaintiff, : Judge Timothy S. Black : vs. : : THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE : COMPANY OF AMERICA : : and : : CHCS SERVICES, INC. Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND This case is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Notice of Partial Dismissal of Counts III and IV.” (Doc. 18). Plaintiff purports to voluntarily dismiss Counts III and IV of her Amended Complaint, (Doc. 9), under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Rule 41 permits plaintiffs to “dismiss an action without a court order by filing … a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (emphasis supplied). In the Sixth Circuit, plaintiffs may only use a Rule 41 notice to dismiss the entire controversy, not a portion of the claims. Philip Carey Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 286 F.2d 782, 785 (6th Cir. 1961). A Rule 41 notice purporting to dismiss only certain claims is therefore ineffective. See, e.g., Malik v. F-19 Holdings, LLC, No. CV 5:15-130-KKC, 2016 WL 2939150, at *4 (E.D. Ky. May 19, 2016). Where plaintiffs seek to dismiss only some of their claims, the appropriate procedural vehicle is an amended complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15; see Barrientos v. UT-

Battelle, LLC, 284 F. Supp. 2d 908, 916 (S.D. Ohio 2003). For that reason, courts often, in their discretion, construe a Rule 41 notice that purports “to dispose of fewer than all claims against a defendant” as a Rule 15 motion for leave to amend. Baker v. City of Detroit, 217 F. App’x 491, 497 (6th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the Court will construe Plaintiff’s “notice” as a motion for leave to amend under Rule 15. Courts “should freely give leave when justice so requires.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Such is the case here. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file her amended complaint within 21 days of the date of this Order. Consistent with Rule 15(a)(3), Defendants shall have 14 days to respond to the Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Date: 11/16/2021 s/Timothy S. Black Timothy S. Black United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-the-prudential-insurance-company-of-america-ohsd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack