Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02635/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02635-27/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jay A. Morrow, D.D.S., an individual,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2635-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice as to

Defendants BMI and Kilburn on Certain Terms (Agreed to and Joined by Defendants BMI and

Kilburn) (“Motion for Dismissal”) (Dkt. 260), and Request for Expedited Ruling (Dkt. 261). For

reasons given below, these motions will be denied.

Plaintiff and Defendants BMI and Kilburn (“BMI Defendants”) seek dismissal with prejudice

of the claims asserted by Plaintiff against BMI Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) permits dismissal of an action “at the plaintiff’s request only by

court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” The moving parties’ state that their

agreement to dismiss the action as between them requires that the Court “expressly find that

Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendants Boston Mutual and Disability RMS are unaffected by entry

of the proposed order of dismissal with prejudice” as to the BMI Defendants. (Dkt. 260, Mot. for

Dismissal 2:1-3.) The “reasons” for this finding consist of legal conclusions regarding the liability

of the remaining Defendants, Boston Mutual and Disability RMS. (See id. at 2:4-14.) For example,

“Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Boston Mutual and Disability RMS are independent causes

of action not predicated on the legal joinder of [BMI Defendants].”

Case 2:06-cv-02635-SMM Document 265 Filed 07/07/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

2

The moving parties essentially seek a declaratory judgment regarding the liability of the

remaining Defendants. The Court does not consider such terms to be “proper” for dismissal, but

instead entirely unnecessary for the stated purpose of dismissing with prejudice the BMI

Defendants. Nor does the Court see any need for an expedited briefing schedule. As such, the

Court will not require further briefing from the remaining Defendants, on an expedited basis or

otherwise.

The Motion for Dismissal will therefore be denied without prejudice. Should Plaintiff and

BMI Defendants reach a settlement agreement that does not require a declaration regarding

Plaintiff’s claims against the remaining Defendants, they may represent a motion for dismissal. If

not, the Court anticipates receiving Plaintiff’s response to BMI Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Judgment, due July 23, 2008. As Plaintiff notes, a fourth extension of the deadline to respond to

BMI Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment would “test the Court’s patience” and be “almost

certainly unnecessary.” (Dkt. 264, Pl.’s Reply to Mot. for Expedited Ruling 2 n.1.)

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying without prejudice and with leave to refile Plaintiff’s

Motion for Dismissal (Dkt. 260).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot the Joint Request for Expedited Ruling

(Dkt. 261).

DATED this 7th day of July, 2008.

Case 2:06-cv-02635-SMM Document 265 Filed 07/07/08 Page 2 of 2