Lamas v. Byrne
Erich Saint-Lamas v. Gerry Byrne, Sandy Climan, Fox Corporation, Todd Green, George Grobar, Paul Hazen, George Hecksher, Peter Liu, Ali Munir, Nextshark Media, Jay Penske, Penske Media Corporation, Craig Perreault, Sandra Rabin, Sarlina See, Sophie Steinbeck, The Express Group, Connie Wong, Steve Wozniak
- Laura Swain
- 1:26-cv-05281
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Erich Saint-Lamas v. Gerry Byrne, Judge Swain dismissed the action without prejudice after Saint-Lamas withdrew it and denied fee-free appeal status.
Saint-Lamas’s action was closed at his request. The dismissal was without prejudice, and the opinion states that the defendants had not been served or appeared. Any appeal would not qualify for permission to proceed without paying the usual filing fees.
What happened
In Erich Saint-Lamas v. Gerry Byrne, Saint-Lamas told the court that he wanted to withdraw the lawsuit. The defendants had not been served and had not appeared.
The court explained that a plaintiff may voluntarily end a case without court permission before defendants serve an answer or a summary-judgment motion. Because those conditions applied, Saint-Lamas did not need the court’s permission.
Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice, directed the Clerk of Court to close the case and terminate pending motions, and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Lamas v. Byrne · No. 1:26-cv-05281
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 19, 2026
Background
On August 10, 2026, the court received Saint-Lamas’s letter saying that he wanted to withdraw the action. The opinion states that the defendants had not been served and had not appeared.
Rule and analysis
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) permits a plaintiff to voluntarily 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, or by filing a dismissal agreement signed by all parties who have appeared. Because no defendant had been served or appeared, the court concluded that Saint-Lamas did not need the court’s permission to dismiss the action.
The court also noted that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) is generally without prejudice. It stated that a prior dismissal of a federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim can cause a later notice of dismissal to operate as a decision on the merits.
Ruling
Based on Saint-Lamas’s notice, the action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice under Rule 41(a). The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate any pending motions and close the case. 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 the usual filing fees for an appeal. The order did not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.