Stringer v. Publishers
- Laura Swain
- 1:25-cv-06651
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stringer v. Macmillan Publishers, Judge Swain granted Stringer’s request, dismissing claims against Macmillan without prejudice while allowing claims against St. Martin’s Press to proceed.
Vickie M. Stringer’s claims against Macmillan Publishers, LLC were dismissed without prejudice, and Macmillan was terminated as a defendant. The order allowed Stringer’s claims against St. Martin’s Press to remain as the claims she chose to pursue.
What happened
In Vickie M. Stringer v. Macmillan Publishers, LLC, et al., Vickie M. Stringer sued Macmillan Publishers, LLC, and St. Martin’s Press. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Stringer, who was representing herself, filed a notice asking to voluntarily dismiss her claims against Macmillan and proceed only against St. Martin’s Press.
The court granted that request and dismissed the claims against Macmillan without prejudice. Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain also directed the clerk to remove Macmillan from the case.
The detailed version
- Stringer v. Publishers · No. 1:25-cv-06651
- Laura Swain
- Sept. 3, 2025
Background
Vickie M. Stringer, who appeared without a lawyer, filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on August 26, 2025, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. She asked to discontinue her claims against Macmillan Publishers, LLC, and proceed only with her claims against St. Martin’s Press. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
Ruling
The court granted Stringer’s request. It dismissed Stringer’s claims against Macmillan Publishers, LLC, without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate Macmillan as a defendant in the action under Rule 41(a). The order therefore did not dismiss the claims against St. Martin’s Press.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The court separately restricted electronic access to Stringer’s filing seeking permission to proceed without paying court fees because the filing appeared to disclose a minor child’s full name.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.