2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
7-28-2008 

# In Re: B ath Kit che
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 07-1520

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" In Re: B ath Kit che " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 746. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/746P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 07- 1520

I N R E: BA TH A ND KI TCH EN FI XTU RES ANT I T RU S T L I T I GAT I ON S A M U E L G O R D O N A R C H IT E C T S , P .C .; WATE RT OWN P L UM BI NG AND HE AT I NG

S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y , IN C .; R E P U B L IC P L U M B IN G S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y , IN C .; T HAMES VAL L E Y WI NNE L S ON C OM P ANY;

E A S T C O A S T P E T R O L E U M; J E R M O R P L U M B IN G & H E A T IN G , IN C .; CO L ONI AL S UP P L Y C OR P OR AT I ON; B IS B IS IM P O R T S B O S T O N , IN C .; S C H A E F F E R P L U M B IN G S U P P L Y C O M P A N Y , IN C .;

S E CU RI T Y S UP P L Y C OM P ANY; D O N A TU CC I K I TC H EN S & A PPLI A N CE S; G
. J
. O LSO N A RC H I TEC TS; T R U M B U L L IN D U S T R IE S , IN C .; OW NER S UPP LI ED, LL C; N O R T H S H O R E F A U C E T S , IN C .; T H E P L U M B IN G S O U R C E , IN C .;T he H onor abl e A nne E
. T hom ps on, U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct * J udge fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey , s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 2 N E E N A N C O M P A N Y , IN C ., A p p e llan ts

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia D
. C
. C i vi l A ct i on N os . 05- cv- 1232, 05- cv- 1065, 05- cv- 1075, 05- cv- 1044, 05- cv- 0869, 05- cv- 0801, 05- cv- 0774, 05- cv- 0689, 05- cv- 1861, 05- cv- 0678, 05- cv- 0677, 05- cv- 0626, 05- cv- 0585, 05- cv- 0535, 05- cv- 0565, 05- cv- 0537, 05- cv- 0510 ( H onor abl e M aryA
. M cLaughl i n)

A r gued J anuary28, 2008 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge , a n d T H O M P S O N , D is tr i ct Judge * ( Fi l ed : J ul y28, 2008) RO BE RT J
. L a RO CC A, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) K ohn, Sw i ft& G r af O ne Sout h B r oad St r eet , Sui t e 2100 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 191073 STEVEN A
. ASH ER, ESQU I RE W ei ns t ei n, K i t chenof

f & A s her 1845 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1100 Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 GERALD J
. RODOS, ES QUI RE B arr ack, R odos & B aci ne 3 3 0 0 T w o C o m m erc e S q u are 2001 M arketSt r eet Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 W ARREN RUBI N, ES QUI RE L aw O ffi ces of B ernar d M
. G ross J ohn W anamakerB ui l di ng, Sui t e 450 Ju n ip e r & M a rk e t S tre e ts Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19107 A tto rn e y s f

o r A p p e llan ts J OS E P H R
. BA KE R, E S QUI RE ( AR GUE D) RI CHARD J
. F AVRETT O, ES QUI RE M ARK W
. RYAN, ES QUI RE M a y e rBr o wn 1 9 0 9 K S t r e e t , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20006 BARBARA W
. M ATHER, ES QUI RE PepperH ami l t on 3 0 0 0 T w o L o g an S q u are4 1 8 th & A rc h S tre e ts Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19103 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee, T r ane I nc. ERI C J
. M c CA RTH Y, ESQU I RE M ARGARET M
. ZWI S LE R, ES QUI RE L atham & W atki ns 555 11t h St r eet , N
. W
. , Sui t e 1000 W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20004 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee, M as co C orpor at i on S TE P HEN W
. ARM S TRONG, ES QUI RE P ET ER B RES LAUER, ES QUI RE M ont gom ery , M cC r acke n, W al ker& R hoads 123 Sout h B r oad St r eet , 24th Fl oor Phi l adel phi a, Penns y l vani a 19109 CHARLE S G. CURTI S , J R. , ES QUI RE H el l erE hr m an O ne EastM ai n St r eet , Sui t e 201 M adi s on, W i s cons i n 53703- 5118 ROBER T A. ROS ENF EL D, ES QUI RE H el l erE hr m an 333 B us h St r eet , Sui t e 3320 San Fr anci s co, C al i forni a 941045 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee, K ohl erC om pany ADA M K. LE VI N, ES QUI RE M I TCHE LL E. ZAM OFF , ES QUI RE H ogan & H ar t s on 5 5 5 1 3 t h S t r e e t , N
. W. W as hi ngt on, D
. C
. 20004 A t t or ney s forA ppel l ee, E lj er P lum b ing w are

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge
. Pl ai nt i ffs appea l the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or ders t r i ki ng as u n t i me l yt h e i rn o t i c e o f v o l u n t a r y d i s mi s s a l f

i l e d u n d e rF e d
. R. C i v. P
. 41 (a) (1) (A )( i ). W e w i l l vacate and rem and w i th i ns t ruct i ons t o ent er an orde r di s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntw i t hout pr ej udi ce. I
. Pur chas er s of bath and ki t chen pl um bi ng fi xtur es fi l ed put at i ve cl as s act i on compl ai nt s agai ns t m anufa ctur er s , al l egi ng a pr i ce-fi xi ng cons pi r acyi n vi ol at i on of Sect i on 1 of the Sher m an A ct , 15 U
. S. C
. § 1. Sevent een c as es w er e cons ol i dat edT he fourdefe ndant s di vi ded i nt o tw o gr oups , eac h of w hi ch 1 s epar at el y fil ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s . T her e i s no r el evant d if f e re n c e b e tw e e n th e m o tio n s f o r th e p u rp o se o f

th is a p p e a l. 6 in th e D istric t C o u rt. In ste a d o f f ili n g a n a n s w e r, d e f

e n d a n ts m oved t o di s m i s s t he consol i dat ed and am ended c om pl ai ntfor fa il u re to state a c lai m u n d er F ed
. R
. C iv. P. 12 (b)(6 ). 1 O n J ul y19, 2006, t he D ist ri ctC our ti s s ued a m em o ra n d u m o p inion fin d ing p lai n ti ff s n ee d ed to p lead m o re fac t s t o m eet t he not i ce st andar d of F ed. R
. C i v. P. 8( a) ( 2)
. T he m e m o ra n d u m sta ted in re lev a n t p a rt: [T]he C our tw i l l not di s m i s s t he consol i dat ed and amended compl ai ntw i t h pr ej udi ce at t hi s t i m e as t he def endant s r equest
. A tor al ar gum ent , t he C o u rtask ed co u n sel fo r the plaintiffs if the re w ere a n ysu p p lem e n tal f

a c ts th a t co u ld b e p led to addr es s the defe ndant s ’ ar gum ent s thatthe cons ol i dat ed and a m ended compl ai ntdi d not pr ovide suffi ci entnot i ce of t he gr ounds upon w hi ch the cons pi r acycl ai m w as bas ed. C ouns el i m pl i ed thatt heym i ghtpos s es s m or e i nform at i on t han w as al l eged i n t he pl eadi ngs , but did not su p p lem e n t th e c o m p lain t. .
. . T h e C o u rt, nevert hel es s , w i l l al l ow t he pl ai nt i ffs an o p p o r tu n i t yt o a me n d th e i rp l e a d i n g s . . . . AnA lth o u g h th e Ju ly1 9 , 2 0 0 6 , o rd e r in d ica tes th e m o tio n s to 2 dis m i ss ar e “granted, ” i tal so st at es t he “C ou rtw i l l no tdis m i ss th e c o n so lid a ted a n d a m e n d e d c o m p lain t at th is tim e , b u t w ill a l l o w th e p la in tif

f s th ir ty (3 0 ) d a y s to a m e n d th e irc o m p la in t.” T he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s s ubs equentl et t ert o couns el and J anuary24, 2007, or deracknow l edged the appa r entambi gui t yi n t he Ju l y1 9, 2006, or deras t o w hetherthe compl ai nthad bee n di s m i s s ed. T h e d o c k e t n o te s : “ D a te T e rm in a te d : 0 8 /3 0 /2 0 0 6 .” 3 7 app ropri at e O rderfoll ow s. 2 T he w i ndow foramendm entw as due t o cl os e on A ugus t18, 2006, buton A ugus t17, 2006, the D i s t r i ctC our tgr ant ed pl ai nt i ffs ’ unoppos ed mot ion foran ext ens i on t hr ough Sept ember1, 2006. O n A ugus t30, 2006, i ns t ead of amendi ng t he c ompl a i nt , pl a i nt i ff s fi l e d a no t i c e un de rFe d. R
. Ci v. P. 4 1 (a)(1)(A )(i ), v o lun tari lyd ism issi n g the a cti o n ( the “N o ti ce ”). 3 W i t h one exc ept ion , n o tappl i cabl e her e, a t i m el ynot i ce of vo l un t a r ydi s mi s s a l i s w i t ho utpr e j ud i c e . F ed. R. Ci v. P. 4 1 (a )(1 )(B ). D e f

e n d a n ts, se e k in g in ste a d a d ism iss a l w ith pr ej udi ce, fi l ed a “ M ot i on for E ntr y of Judgm ent i n A ccor dance w ith th e C o u rt ’s M e m o ra n d u m a n d O r d e r o f J u ly 1 9 , 2 0 0 6 ,” cont e n d i n g p l a i n t i f

f s c o u l d n o l o n g e rv o l u n t a r i l yd i s mi s s by n ot i ce be caus e the D i s t r i ctC our tal r eadyhad gr ant ed defe nd ants ’ m oti on t o d i sm i ss on Jul y19 , 20 06
. D efen da n ts as ked the D i s t r i ct C our t t o s t r i ke the N ot i ce a nd ent eran or der o f d i s mi s s a l wi t h p r e

j u d i c e . P l a i n t i f

f s o p p o s e d t h e mo t i o n . OnA l t hough t he J anuary24, 2007, or derdoes nots t at e the 4 compl ai nti s di s m i s s ed “w i t h pr ej udi ce,” defendant s do not d is p u te th e f

in a lity o f th a t o rd e r. See Shane v. Fauver , 213 F. 3d 113, 115 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( “B eca us e t he or der di d nots peci fythat t he di s m i s s al w as w i t hout pr ej udi ce, underFed. R
. C i v. P. 41( b) the d ism issal ‘o p e rates as an ad jud icati o n u p o n the m erit s. ’”). T h ere is som e c o n fu sion in the re co rd a s to w h ethe r th e Ja n u ary 24, 2007, or derper t ai ned t o al l the par t i es named i n t he not i ce of appe al
. B eca us e the or derappea r s t o have di s pos ed of al l the cons ol i dat ed ca s es , w e fi nd thatal l pl ai nt i ffs ar e pr operpart i es t o t hi s appea l
. D efe ndant s do notcont end otherw i s e. T he D i s t r i ctC our thad fe der al ques t i on j ur i s di ct i on under28 5 U .S .C
. § 1 3 3 1
. W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 to r e v i e w th e Di s t r i c t Cou r t ’ s o r d e r s t r i k i n g t h e Not i c e and d is m is s in g th e c o m p la in t. O u r r e v ie w is p le n a ry. M a n z e v. Stat e Farm I

ns . C o. , 8 1 7 F
. 2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 4 (3d C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ). R u le 4 1 re c e iv e d sty listic re v isio n s, im m a ter ial to th is 6 appea l , eff

ect i ve D ece m ber1, 2007.

8 J anuary24, 2007, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts t ruck the N ot i ce a s u n tim e lyf

iled a n d e n ter e d a n o rd e r d is m iss in g th e c o m p lain t. 4 T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. 5 II. F ed. R
. C i v. P
. 41 (a) (1) provides: 6 (A ) W i thouta C our tO r der
. S u bje ctt o R ul esW h e n th e n o tic e is f iled , the C ler k m a k e s a n a p p ro p ria te 7 entr yon t he docke tnot i ng the t erm i nat i on of the ac t i on. 9 2 3 (e ), 2 3 .1 (c ), 2 3 .2 , an d 6 6 a n d a n ya p p lica b le fede r al s t atut e, t he pl ai nt i ff m ay di s m i s s an ac t i on w i t houta cour tor derbyfi l i ng: ( i ) a not i ce of di s m i s s al befor e t he oppos i ng par t ys erves ei t her an ans w erora mot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent ; or ( i i ) a s t i pul at i on of di s m i s s al s i gned byal l par t i es w h o h av e a p p ea red
. (B ) E f f ect . U nl es s t he not i ce o r stip u latio n s tate s o th e rw ise , the d ism iss a l is w ith o u t p re

ju d ice . B u t if th e p lain tiff p re v io u sly di s m i s s ed any fede r al

- ors t at e- cour tact i on bas ed on ori ncl udi ng t he s ame cl ai m , a not i ce of di s m i s s al oper at es as an adj udi cat i o n on t he m eri t s. T hr ee ke yas pect s of R ul e 41( a)( 1 ) ( A ) ( i ) contr ol our anal y s i s . Fi r s t , a fi l i ng underthe R ul e i s a not i ce, nota mot i on. I t s eff ec t i s aut om at i c: t he def endantdoes notfi l e a r es pons e, and no or derof the dist ri ctcour ti s neede d t o end the ac t i on. 7 Second , t he not i ce r es ul t s i n a di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce ( unl es s i ts t at es ot herw i s e) , as l ong as t he plai nt i ff ha s never d i s mi s s e d a n a c t i o n b a s e d o n o ri n c l u d i n g t h e s a me c l a i m i n a pr i orcas e. T hi r d, t he def endanthas onl yt w o opt i ons forcut t i ng off the pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ght t o end t he cas e by not i ce: s ervi ng on the p lain tiff a n a n sw e r o r a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. H er e, i t i s undi s put ed thaton the dat e pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed the10 N ot i ce: ( 1) pl ai nt i ffs had never befor e di s m i s s ed an act i on bas ed on ori ncl udi ng t he s ame cl ai m ; an d (2) defenda nt s had not se rv e d a n a n sw e r o r a m o tio n f o r s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. A ccor di ngl y , t he part i es agr ee a t i m el yN ot i ce w oul d have r es ul t ed i n aut om at i c di s m i s s al w i t hout p rej udi ce. T he tim e lin e ss o f

th e N o ti c e d e p e n d s o n w h e th e r th e “ a c tio n ” to w hi ch the R ul e r efe r s r emai ned pendi ng w h en t he N ot i ce w as fi l ed. T he R ul e “a ffi xes a br i ght

- l i ne t es tt o l i m it the r i ghtof di s m i s s al t o t he ea r l ys t ages of l i t i gat i on, ” M an ze , 817 F. 2d at 1 0 6 5 , w h ich “ sim p li fies the co u rt ’s task b y tel li n g itw h ethe r a s ui thas r eac hed the poi nt o f n o r eturn. I f the def endanthas serve d e i t he ra n a ns w e rora s umm a r yj ud gmen tmot i on i tha s; i f the def

endanthas s erved nei t her , i thas not
. ” Id

. ( quot i ng W in ter la n d C o n c e ss io n s C o . v. Sm ith , 70 6 F
. 2d 79 3, 79 5 (7 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 )). U p to th e “ p o in t o f n o re tu r n ,” d ism iss a l is a utom at i c and i m m ediat e – the r i gh t of a plai nti ff is “unfe t t er ed, ” C ar t er v . U n ited Stat es , 5 4 7 F .2 d 2 5 8 , 2 5 9 (5 th C i r . 1977)
. A t i m elynot i ce of vol unt arydi s m i s s al i nvi t es no r es pons e fr om t he di s tr i ctcour tand perm i t s no i nt er fer ence by it. See M

ar ex Ti tani c, I

nc. v. W r ecked & A bandoned Vess el , 2 F. 3d 544, 545, 547–48 ( 4th C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( di s t r i ctcour tm aynot v a c a te a tim e lyf

iled n o tice o f

d ism iss a l); A m . C

yanam i d C o. v. McG hee , 3 1 7 F .2 d 2 9 5 , 2 9 7 (5 th C ir. 1 9 6 3 ) (“ [ T h e n o tice ] itse lf cl os es t he fi l e. T her e i s not hi ng t he defe ndant can do t o fan the a s h e s o f t h a ta c t i o n i n t o l i f

e a n d t h e c o u r t h a s n o r o l e t o p l a y. T hi s i s a mat t erof r i ghtrunni ng t o the pl ai nt i ff a nd m aynotbeA d istric t co u rt re tain s ju risd ictio n to d e c id e “ c o llate ra l” 8 issue s – su ch as sa n cti o n s, co sts, an d att o rne y s’ f e e s – af ter a p la in t i f f d i s m is s e s a n a c tio n b yn o tic e . See Coot er& G el lv. H ar tm ar x C or p. , 4 9 6 U
. S
. 3 8 4 , 3 9 6

– 9 8 (19 9 0 ).

11 e x tin g u is h e d o r c ir c u m s c ri b e d b ya d v e rs a ry o r c o u rt .” ). A pr oper not i ce depr i ves t he di s t r i ct cour tof j ur i s di ct i on t o deci de t he mer i t s of the ca s e. See Man ze , 817 F. 2d at1065–66 8 (di stri ctcou rtm ayno tdecide defe nd ant’ s m o ti on t o d i sm i ss aft er pl ai nt i ff’ s eff

ect i ve R ul e 41( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) not i ce) ; 8 Jam es W m . M oor e etal
. , M oor e’ s F eder al Pr act i ce § 41. 33[6] [e] ( 3d ed. 2008) ( “A defe ndant ’ s m ot i on for entr y of a fi nal j udgm ent underR ul e 54( b) s houl d be deni ed i f t he act i on has al r eadybeen d i s mi s s e d b yn o t i c e . ” ) ; 9 Ch a r l e s Al a n W r i gh t& A r t h u rR. M i l l er , Feder al Pr act i ce & Pr ocedur e: C i v. 3d § 2367, at559–61 (3 d e d . 2 0 0 8 ) (“ A f

ter th e d ism iss a l, th e a c tio n n o lo n g e r is pendi ng i n t he dist ri ct cour tand no furt herpr ocee di ngs i n the ac ti o n are p rop er.”). Bec a us e a mot i on t o d i s mi s s un de rFe d. R
. C i v. P. 1 2 (b )( 6 ) is n eith er a n an sw er n o r a m o ti o n fo r sum m ary j udgm ent , i t s fi l i ng gener al l ydoes not cut off a pl ai nt i ff’ s r i ght to dism iss b y n o ti ce . Ma n ze , 817 F. 2d at1066. O nl yw hen a m ot i on fi l ed underFed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) i s convert ed bythe di s t r i ctcour ti nt o a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entdoes i tbarSee F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (d ) (“ If , o n a m o tio n u n d e r R u le 9 1 2 (b )(6 ) o r 1 2 (c ), m a tters o u tsid e th e p lea d in g s a re p re se n ted to and notexcl uded byt he court , t he m ot i on m us tbe tr eat ed as one fors um m aryj udgm entunderR ul e 56. A l l part i es m us tbe gi ven a re a so n a b le o p p o rtu n ityto p r e s e n t all th e m a ter ial th a t is p erti n en t t o the m o ti o n . ”). 12 v o lu n tar yd ism iss a l. I

d. H e re , d e f

e n d a n ts d o n o t co n ten d th e ir 9 m ot i on w as convert ed t o a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , or that itsh o u ld b e treated as a n an sw er. I n Man ze , w e re

jec ted th e d e f

e n d a n t’s a rg u m e n t th a t it s m ot i on t o di s m iss u n d er Fed. R
. C i v. P. 12( b) ( 6) w as
“ e q u iv a len t” to a m o tio n f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t th a t sh o u ld h a v e b a rr e d th e p la in tif f ’s d is m is s a l b yn o tic e . I d. We a c k n o wl e d g e d t h e d e f

e n d a n t ’ s pr e f

e r r e d a p p r o a c h h a d s o me “t heo ret i cal app eal ” beca use m oti on s t o d i sm iss m ayi m po se m uch l aborand expens e on par t i es and j udges – s om et i m es t hey a re a s tim e -c o n s u m in g a s m o t i o n s f o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. I d. at1065 ( ci t i ng Tel e- V

i ew s N ew s C o. v. S. R

. B

. TV

P ubl ’ g C o. , 28 F. R
. D
. 303, 307–08 ( E
. D
. Pa. 1961) )
. M or eover , R ul e 41 may permi t a s t r a t e g i c a d v a n t a g e f o r a p l a i n t i f

f: i f p r o s p e c t s for pr evai l i ng on t he mer i t s appea rdi m , t he pl ai nt i ff c an obt ai n a di s m i s s al w i t houtpr ej udi ce a ft er i m pos i ng hi gh cos t s on defe ndant s and j udges
. B utthe dr aft er s of R ul e 41 pr ovi ded for onl yt w o r es pons es – ans w erand mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent

– a s “ p o i n t [ s ] o f n o r e tu r n. ” I d. ( quot i ng W

i nt er l and C onces s i ons , 7 0 6 F .2 d a t 7 9 5 ). It w o u ld b e im p ro p e r to g ra f t aT he cons equenc es of fol l ow i ng t he R ul e have s om et i m es 10 appea r ed s ubs t ant i al l yunfai rorw as t eful , esp eci al l yw hen the di s t r i ctcour tal r eadyhas del ved i nt o the mer i t s , w arr anti n g a departur e fr om t he l i t er al t ext
. I n Ha r v e y A l u mi n u m, I

n c . v . A m. C yanam i d C o. , 203 F
. 2 d 1 0 5 ( 2d C i r . 1953) , the pl ai nt i ff s ued fors peci fi c per form ance of an a s s etpur chas e con tr ac t a nd obt ai ned an e x par t e t empora r y r es t r ai ni ng or dert o pr eventt he d e f e n d a n t f ro m s e llin g th e d is p u te d p ro p e rt y to a th ir d p a rt y . I d. at107. T he di s t r i ct cour t hel d an ext ens i ve hear i ng ( 420 pages tr an scribe d ) an d d en ied th e p lai n ti ff ’s m o ti o n fo r a p reli m inary in ju n c t i o n . I

d. B efor e the def

endanthad fi l ed an a ns w eror m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , t he pl ai nt i ff fi l ed a not i ce of d ism issal un d er R u le 4 1 (a )( 1 ). I d. T h e d e f

e n d a n t m o v e d to st r ik e th e n o tice , b u t th e d istric t co u rt a p p lied th e R u le b yits lite ra l te rm s a n d f

o u n d th e n o tic e e f

f e c tiv e . I d. T he C our tof A ppeal s fort he S econd C i r cui tr ever s ed, hol di ng l i t er al c o m p lia n c e w ith th e R u le ’s te x t u n w a rr a n te d o n th e f a c ts
. I d. at 107–08. T he di s t r i ct cour t had conduc t ed a l engthyhear i ng on t he m erit s i n deny i ng the pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on, and i thad opi ned t hat t he pr os pect s for t he pl ai nt i ff t o s uccee d o n the m er i t s appea r ed “r emot e i f notcompl etel yni l
. ” I d. at 10 7
. In t hes e ci r cumst ance s , a “l i t er al appl i cat i on” of Rul e 41( a) ( 1) “w oul d notbe i n acc or d w i t h i t s es s ent i al purpos e of pr event i ng arbi t r arydi s m i s s al s aft eran adva nced s t age of a s ui thas been 13 n e w c a te g o ry o n to th e lite ra l te x t o f th e R u le
. I

d. A s i n Man ze , w e ap pl yt he l i t er al t erm s of R ul e 41. 10r eac hed. ” I d. at108. H ar vey h as b ee n crit ici ze d f o r blu rri n g the R u le’s “br i ght

- l i ne” t i m i ng t es t , and i thas b een di s t i ngui s hed w hen a p p ro p ri a te
. See U

ni ver s i dad C ent
. D el C ar i be, I nc. v. Li ais on C om m . on Med. E duc. , 760 F. 2d 14, 18 ( 1s tC i r . 1985) (“ H ar vey A l um i num h a s n o t b e e n w e ll rec e iv e d .”); se e a lso Ma rex T ita n ic , 2 F .3 d a t 5 4 7 ; H

am i l t on v. Shears on- Lehm an A m . E xpr es s , I nc. , 8 1 3 F .2 d 1 5 3 2 , 1 5 3 4 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 7 ); W i nt er l and C onces s i ons , 706 F. 2d at796; P i l otFr ei ghtC ar r i ers , I

nc. v. I nt ’ lB hd. of T eam st ers , 5 0 6 F .2 d 9 1 4 , 9 1 6 (5 th C ir. 1 9 7 5 ); D

. C

. E l ecs . , I nc. v . Nar tr o n Cor

p. , 5 1 1 F. 2d 294, 297 ( 6th C i r . 1975)
. T he Second C i r cui thas i t s el f l i m i t ed Ha r v e y Al u mi n u m to its
“ e x tr e m e ” c ir c u m s ta n c e s . Thorp v

. S car ne , 599 F. 2d 1169, 1176 ( 2d C i r . 1979)
. W e di s t i ngui s hed Ha r v e y A l u mi n u m in Ma n z e . 81 7 F
. 2d at10 66 n. 4. W h a tever vi t al i t ythe case r et ai ned i n t he Second Ci r cui t , “i t s r eas oni ng coul d notbe per s uas i ve [i n Man ze ] si nce the di s t r i ctcour tpr ocee di ngs had notadvan ced so f

ar ” as theyhad i n H

ar vey A l um i num . I

d. In Man ze , as of the dat e the pl ai nt i ff di s m i s s ed bynot i ce, no ext ens i ve hea r i ng had bee n hel d and the di s t r i ctcourthad t aken no pos i t i on on t he mer i t s of the ca s e. 14 Fur t herm or e, w e r ej ectdefe ndant s ’ cont ent i on thatthe D i s t r i ct C our t ’ s gr ant i ng pl ai nt i ffs t he ri ght t o amend, and an e xt ens i on of t i m e w i t hi n w hi ch t o do s o, l i m i t ed ornul l i fi ed t he opt i on of di s m i s s i n g a v a i l a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f s u n d e r t h e Rul e . Her e , t he N ot i ce w as t i m el ybeca us e def endant s had fi led nei t heran ans w er nor a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entas of the dat e of the15 N ot i ce, and bec aus e t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s J ul y19, 2006, or derhad no tcl earl ypu tan en d to the “ac t i on ” t o w hich R ule 41 refer s. III
. Fort he for egoi ng r eas ons , w e w i l l vaca t e t he J anuary24, 2007, or derof the D i s t r i ctC our tand r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o ent eran or derdi s m i s s i ng the compl ai ntw i t houtpr ej udi ce.