Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00901/USCOURTS-almd-1_11-cv-00901-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 445
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Employment
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLI OUTLAW, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACT. NO. 1:11cv901-CSC

) (WO)

WORLD FINANCE CORPORATION, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION and ORDER

Now pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss filed on July 11,

2012. See Doc. # 17. The plaintiff seeks to have this case voluntarily dismissed without 1

prejudice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action

voluntarily only “by court order, on terms that the court considers proper” after the defendant

has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, unless there is a stipulation signed

by all the parties to the action. FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). “A voluntary dismissal

without prejudice is not a matter of right.” Fisher v. Puerto Rico Marine Mgmt, Inc. 940

F.2d 1502, 1502 (11 Cir.1991). th

Because the defendant has filed an answer before the plaintiff filed her motion to

dismiss, Outlaw cannot voluntarily dismiss her claims against World Finance Corporation

without a stipulation filed by all the parties or an order from the court. The parties have not

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the parties have consented to the United 1

States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:11-cv-00901-CSC Document 20 Filed 07/16/12 Page 1 of 2
signed or filed a stipulation. Thus, FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2) governs the plaintiff’s motion.

The court retains broad discretion when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to

FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). See Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255

(11 Cir. 2001). “A district court considering a motion for a dismissal without prejudice th

should bear in mind principally the interests of the defendant, for it is the defendant’s

position that the court should protect.” McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 856

(11 Cir. 1986). “The purpose of the rule ‘is primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which th

unfairly affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of curative conditions.’” Id.

(quoting Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Filene's, 291 F.2d 142, 146 (1 Cir. 1961). The

st

defendant does not object to the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. # 19. Therefore,

upon consideration of the motion and for good cause, it is

ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (doc. # 17) be and is hereby

GRANTED and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.

A separate final judgment will be entered.

Done this 16 day of July, 2012. th

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:11-cv-00901-CSC Document 20 Filed 07/16/12 Page 2 of 2