Court Opinion

ID: 47225
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 23:19:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.677512
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
 

  V. Stephen Moore filed his original complaint seeking relief from defendants’ new leave policy on October 25, 2004. He styled it as a class action, but never moved for nor was it ever certified as such. Nor was the original complaint ever served on any of the defendants.
 

 
   *967
   
  On December 8, 2004, Moore filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(l)(a)(i). According to Moore’s Initial Brief on appeal, he sought voluntary dismissal “in order to gain time to more properly represent the class through negotiated settlement rather than litigation.”
 

  On December 9, 2004, Moore states that he was notified by the defendants that they had changed their leave policy. Subsequently, he filed a motion seeking attorneys’ fees, costs and for discovery in the dismissed case, arguing that he was a prevailing party. The district court denied the motion, holding that Moore had voluntarily dismissed the action before he obtained any relief for himself or the putative class.
 

  Our review of the briefs and the record support the conclusion of the district court, and finding no reversible error, the denial if the motion is
 

  AFFIRMED.