Lee v. Alan T. Chan
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-02137
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Bandy Lee v. Alan T. Chan, Judge Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice after holding Lee could voluntarily dismiss before an answer or summary-judgment motion.
Bandy Lee’s action against Alan T. Chan was dismissed without prejudice after the court ruled that Lee could voluntarily dismiss it without court permission. The order terminated the case without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
Bandy Lee v. Alan T. Chan began in New York state court and was removed to federal court by Alan T. Chan. Lee, who was representing herself, asked to withdraw the case, arguing that Chan had removed the wrong version of her complaint. Chan argued that Lee was trying to avoid federal court.
The court held that Lee could dismiss the case without asking the court for permission because Chan had not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court also ruled that Chan’s pre-motion letter did not count as either of those filings and that the voluntary-dismissal rule applies to cases removed from state court.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the action and close the motion at docket entry 8. The court did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Lee v. Alan T. Chan · No. 1:25-cv-02137
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 8, 2025
Background
The action was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New York in New York County to the Southern District of New York. The notice of removal stated that Chan resided in New Jersey, Lee resided in New York, and the damages sought exceeded $75,000. The notice included Lee’s summons and complaint and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint that would add Peter Schoenfeld as a defendant.
Lee, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a letter seeking to withdraw her complaint and arguing that Chan had attached the wrong complaint to the notice of removal. Chan filed a pre-motion conference letter seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss. He argued that Lee’s proposed addition of Schoenfeld, allegedly a New York resident, was an improper attempt to defeat diversity jurisdiction and that Lee was trying to avoid federal court.
Rule 41 Analysis
The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because Chan had filed neither, the court held that Lee could dismiss the case without leave of court.
The court rejected Chan’s argument that his pre-motion conference letter was equivalent to an answer or a motion for summary judgment. It explained that courts strictly apply Rule 41(a)(1) and generally do not treat other filings or events as substitutes for an answer or summary-judgment motion. The court also rejected the argument that Lee’s dismissal was improper because she sought to avoid removal. Once Rule 41(a)(1)’s conditions are met, the court stated, the plaintiff’s right to dismiss is absolute. The same rule applies to cases removed from state court.
Disposition
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ordered that Lee could dismiss the action without court permission. The case was dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the action and close the motion at docket entry 8. The order did not reach the merits of Lee’s underlying claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.