United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

MSP Recovery Claims Series LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v.

State Farm Mutual Automobile 

Insurance Company, Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 22-23109-Civ-Scola

Order of Dismissal

This matter is before the Court on the motion to dismiss filed by the 

Plaintiff, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC (“MSP Recovery”) (Mot. Dismiss, 

ECF No. 24), and the motion for summary judgment filed by the Defendant, 

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). (Mot. 

Summ. J., ECF No. 19.) Neither party has responded to either motion, and the 

time to do so has passed. Having reviewed the briefing, the record, and the 

relevant legal authorities, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss 

(ECF No. 24), dismisses this action with prejudice, and therefore denies as 

moot the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.) 

Before addressing the motions, the Court must briefly review the 

procedural history of this case. This action is an effort by MSP Recovery to 

collect damages from State Farm, a Medicare primary payer, on behalf of a 

Medicare secondary payer under the Medicare Secondary Payer (“MSP”) Act. 

(Compl. ¶¶ 2-7, 10-28, ECF No. 1-2.) State Farm removed this matter to federal 

court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Not. Removal, ECF No. 1.) 

Following discovery, State Farm moved for summary judgment based on

evidence it provided demonstrating that “State Farm properly paid the

bill it received from [the first medical provider] and the bill it received from [the 

second medical provider], and (2) State Farm did not receive additional bills 

from [a third provider at issue].” (Mot. Summ. J. at 8.) 

Rather than responding to the motion for summary judgment, MSP 

Recovery moved to dismiss its own complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(2), seeking a dismissal “with prejudice and on such terms and 

conditions as the Court deems proper.” (Mot. Dismiss at 1.) 

A court may grant a plaintiff’s motion to dismiss its own case “on terms 

that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). A court should allow a 

plaintiff to dismiss its own case “unless the defendant will suffer some plain 

prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” Fisher v. Puerto 

Case 1:22-cv-23109-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 1 of 2
Rico Marine Mgmt., Inc., 940 F.2d 1502, 1502–03 (11th Cir. 1991). But 

“voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a matter of right”; rather, the 

Court must “keep in mind the interests of the defendant” in determining 

whether dismissal is appropriate. Id.

Dismissal with prejudice will appropriately protect State Farm’s rights 

here. See e.g., Martin v. Allied Interstate, LLC, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1300-01 

(S.D. Fla. 2016) (Scola, J.) (observing that “only a dismissal with prejudice 

would be appropriate” where the plaintiff moved to dismiss her case after 

“extensive discovery” and with a pending, “fully briefed motion for summary

judgment” because the Court “fears that the Plaintiff is using this dismissal to 

escape . . . a ruling against her on the merits.”). 

Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and

dismisses this matter with prejudice. (ECF No. 24.) The Court therefore also 

denies as moot the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 19.)

The Court directs the Clerk to close this matter. Any pending motions are

denied as moot. 

Done and ordered in Miami, Florida, on July 14, 2023.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

Case 1:22-cv-23109-RNS Document 26 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 2 of 2