McGraw Hill LLC v. Doe 1
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-00356
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McGraw Hill LLC v. Doe 1, Judge Liman proposed dismissing claims against Benjamin Levy and Hafize Budak with prejudice unless a party objected by February 20.
Benjamin Levy and Hafize Budak would be dismissed from the complaint with prejudice, and each party would bear its own costs and fees, unless a party objected by February 20, 2020.
What happened
McGraw Hill LLC and other publishers submitted proposed notices seeking voluntary dismissal of the complaint against Benjamin Levy and Hafize Budak. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The court explained that Rule 41 concerns dismissing actions, not individual parties. It treated the request as one under Rule 15, Rule 21, or the court’s inherent power.
Judge Lewis J. Liman stated that the complaint would be dismissed against Levy and Budak with prejudice, with each side paying its own costs and fees, unless a party objected by February 20, 2020.
The detailed version
- McGraw Hill LLC v. Doe 1 · No. 1:20-cv-00356
- Lewis Liman
- Feb. 14, 2020
Background
McGraw Hill LLC, Bedford, Freeman & Worth Publishing Group, LLC, Elsevier Inc., Pearson Education, Inc., and Cengage Learning, Inc. are the plaintiffs. The defendants include Benjamin Levy and Hafize Budak. The opinion does not describe the claims underlying the lawsuit.
Request and legal basis
The court received proposed notices of voluntary dismissal concerning Levy and Budak under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(). The court explained that Rule 41 addresses dismissal of an action rather than dismissal of individual parties. It therefore treated the request as one seeking relief under Rule 15, Rule 21, or the court’s inherent power.
Ruling
The court stated that it would dismiss the complaint against Benjamin Levy and Hafize Budak with prejudice. It also stated that each party would bear its own costs and fees. The dismissal was stated to be effective absent an objection by any party by February 20, 2020. The opinion does not state whether any objection was later filed or whether the proposed dismissal was entered after that deadline.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.