Opinion ID: 2363126
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Factors Informing the Circuit Court's Exercise of Discretion.

Text: The decisional law under [FRCP] 41 serves as a guide to the circumstances under which dismissal will not be allowed [pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-506]. PAUL V. NIEMEYER & LINDAM. SCHUETT, MARYLAND RULES COMMENTARY 351-52 (2nd ed.1992) (hereinafter Maryland Rules Commentary). Courts will generally grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless the defendant(s) will suffer some plain legal prejudice if the dismissal is granted. The mere possibility that the action could be refiled in the future, however, is not a sufficient reason to find the legal prejudice necessary to bar a court-granted dismissal. CHARLES A. WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: CIVIL § 2364 (2nd ed.1995); MARYLAND RULES COMMENTARY 351-52 (Court approval will usually be granted unless some prejudice is shown. The mere possibility that the action will be refiled is not sufficient reason to oppose the dismissal.); Ellett Bros., Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co., 275 F.3d 384, 388 (4th Cir.2001) (holding that dismissal of a case pursuant to court order should not be denied absent plain legal prejudice to the defendant); accord Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir.1987) (holding that the trial court must focus primarily on protecting the interests of the defendant); see also, e.g., Langley v. Daimler-Chrysler Corp., 407 F.Supp.2d 897, 904 (N.D.Ohio 2005) (reasoning that plain legal prejudice is required); Manshack v. Southwestern Elec. Power Co., 915 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir.1990) ([T]he courts have generally followed the traditional principle that dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.); Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 1036 (4th Cir.1986). Although this Court previously has not decided precisely what plain legal prejudice entails, we find instructive the federal case law regarding FRCP 41. [14] Whether a plaintiff is entitled to voluntary dismissal without prejudice, i.e., the defendant would not suffer plain legal prejudice in the event of dismissal, is resolved traditionally by analysis according to the following four factors: (1) the non-moving party's effort and expense in preparing for litigation; (2) excessive delay or lack of diligence on the part of the moving party; (3) sufficiency of explanation of the need for a dismissal without prejudice; and (4) the present stage of the litigation, i.e., whether a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion is pending. Witzman v. Gross, 148 F.3d 988, 991-92 (8th Cir.1998) (citing Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 783 (8th Cir.1987)); Gross v. Spies, 133 F.3d 914, 1998 WL 8006,  (4th Cir.1998) (unpublished opinion); Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir.1997) citing Phillips U.S.A., Inc. v. Allflex U.S.A., Inc., 77 F.3d 354, 358 (10th Cir.1996); Kovalic v. DEC Int'l, Inc., 855 F.2d 471, 473-74 (7th Cir.1988) (quoting Pace v. Southern Express Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir.1969)); Langley, 407 F.Supp.2d at 904-05 (N.D.Ohio 2005) (quoting Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir.1994)); DirecTV v. Zink, 337 F.Supp.2d 984, 987 (E.D.Mich.2004) (same); Wilson v. Eli Lilly and Co., 222 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D.Md.2004) (quoting Teck General P'ship v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., 28 F.Supp.2d 989, 991 (E.D.Va.1998) (in turn quoting Gross, 133 F.3d 914, 1998 WL 8006, )). While some courts employ slightly different or augmented tests to determine whether a defendant would suffer clear legal prejudice if voluntary dismissal is granted, [15] we believe that these four factors sufficiently weigh the equities in order to determine whether dismissal without prejudice is appropriate in a given case.