Condayan v. Mathieu
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-05596
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Condayan v. Mathieu, Judge Gardephe adjourned a conference, vacated a briefing schedule, and ordered briefing on Condayan’s second voluntary dismissal notice.
Aimee Condayan and Sarah LaPolla were directly affected by the new briefing schedule and the court’s review of the second voluntary dismissal notice. The order also affected the timing of LaPolla’s motion to dismiss and request for costs and attorney’s fees.
What happened
In Condayan v. Mathieu, Aimee Condayan filed two notices seeking to voluntarily dismiss her claims against Sarah LaPolla without prejudice. The first notice dismissed two copyright-related claims; the second sought to dismiss her remaining claims against LaPolla and remove LaPolla from the entire case.
The court questioned whether the rules allow a second notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. It also asked whether such a dismissal would make LaPolla’s motion to dismiss and request for costs and attorney’s fees no longer live. The court did not decide those questions.
Judge Paul Gardephe adjourned the February 4 telephone conference indefinitely and vacated the existing briefing schedule. He ordered new briefing, with Condayan’s papers due February 12, LaPolla’s due February 19, and Condayan’s reply, if any, due February 26, 2021.
The detailed version
- Condayan v. Mathieu · No. 1:20-cv-05596
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 3, 2021
Background
Aimee Condayan’s complaint asserted five claims against Sarah LaPolla: copyright infringement, breach of an implied-in-fact contract, breach of a confidential relationship, misappropriation, and vicarious or contributory copyright infringement. The court had previously set a schedule for LaPolla’s motion to dismiss and request for costs and attorney’s fees.
On December 7, 2020, Condayan filed a notice voluntarily dismissing the copyright infringement and vicarious or contributory copyright infringement claims against LaPolla. The notice stated that those claims would be dismissed without prejudice, meaning they could potentially be brought again. The court approved that notice on December 9, 2020.
On January 22, 2021, Condayan filed a second notice seeking to dismiss her remaining claims against LaPolla and to dismiss LaPolla from the entire case without prejudice. That same day, LaPolla asked the court to hear her motion to dismiss and her request for costs and attorney’s fees.
Issues Identified by the Court
The court required briefing on whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to file a second notice of voluntary dismissal concerning the same defendant’s remaining claims and obtain a dismissal without prejudice. The court also directed the parties to address whether, if the second dismissal were allowed, LaPolla’s motion to dismiss and request for costs and attorney’s fees would become moot—that is, no longer present a live issue for the court to decide.
The court cited decisions suggesting that a defendant’s pending motions may become moot when the defendant is voluntarily dismissed, but it did not adopt or reject that reasoning in this order.
Order
Judge Paul G. Gardephe adjourned the February 4, 2021 telephone conference indefinitely and vacated the prior order setting the briefing schedule for LaPolla’s motion. The court set a new schedule: Condayan’s papers were due February 12, 2021; LaPolla’s papers were due February 19, 2021; and Condayan’s reply, if any, was due February 26, 2021.
The order did not decide whether the second notice of voluntary dismissal was valid, whether the claims would be dismissed without prejudice, or whether LaPolla’s motion and fee request were moot.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.