Pettenato v. Beacon Health Options, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:19-cv-01646
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pettenato v. Beacon Health Options, Judge Oetken dismissed Maia Smith’s claims without prejudice; other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected.
Maia Smith’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The order stated that all other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected.
What happened
Pettenato v. Beacon Health Options, Inc. involved Maia Smith’s request to leave a lawsuit against Beacon Health Options, Inc., Beacon Health Strategies LLC, and ValueOptions Federal Services, Inc. The plaintiffs asked the court to dismiss Smith’s claims without prejudice, meaning she could potentially bring them again.
Smith’s lawyers said she wanted to dismiss her claims and had acted quickly. The defendants would not agree to dismissal without prejudice and would agree only to dismissal with prejudice, which would bar refiling those claims.
Judge Oetken ordered that Smith’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. The order stated that all other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected.
The detailed version
- Pettenato v. Beacon Health Options, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-01646
- James Oetken
- Jan. 29, 2020
Background
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in February 2019 and filed a first amended complaint in June 2019. Maia Smith filed a form opting into the lawsuit on December 9, 2019. On December 18, 2019, she told her lawyers that she wanted to dismiss her claims against all defendants.
The request
The plaintiffs asked under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) for an order dismissing Smith’s claims without prejudice. The defendants would not agree to that dismissal and would agree only to dismissal with prejudice. The plaintiffs argued that Smith had actively sought to leave the case and had done so early in the discovery process. The filing discussed decisions distinguishing between opt-in plaintiffs who do not respond and plaintiffs who voluntarily withdraw.
Ruling
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered that Plaintiff Maia Smith’s claims be dismissed without prejudice. The order separately stated that all other plaintiffs’ claims were unaffected. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the claims.
Disposition
Smith’s claims: dismissed without prejudice. All other plaintiffs’ claims: unaffected by the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.