Pearson Education, Inc. v. Does 1-100
- Kimba Wood
- 1:17-cv-00203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pearson Education v. Does 1-100, Judge Wood recognized Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal without prejudice against 13 defendants.
The plaintiffs’ claims against Apex Trading Co., Bennigan Media Corp., Bookmart, Cognevo Media Corp., Connisseur Trading Inc., Esterline Corp., Graybar Corp., Harpo Corp., InLight Limited, Kalitta Corp., Plus Brokerage Inc., Prolific Trading Inc., and Zettaworld Corp. were dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Pearson Education, Inc. v. Does 1-100 concerns the plaintiffs’ notice voluntarily dismissing their claims against 13 defendants.
The plaintiffs filed that notice on August 4, 2022. The opinion states that the notice covered Apex Trading Co., Bennigan Media Corp., Bookmart, Cognevo Media Corp., Connisseur Trading Inc., Esterline Corp., Graybar Corp., Harpo Corp., InLight Limited, Kalitta Corp., Plus Brokerage Inc., Prolific Trading Inc., and Zettaworld Corp.
The court recognized that the notice was effective without a court order and dismissed the claims against those defendants without prejudice. Judge Kimba M. Wood explained that the federal civil-procedure rule permits this type of dismissal before the defendants serve an answer or a motion for summary judgment.
The detailed version
- Pearson Education, Inc. v. Does 1-100 · No. 1:17-cv-00203
- Kimba Wood
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background
On August 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, of their claims against Apex Trading Co., Bennigan Media Corp., Bookmart, Cognevo Media Corp., Connisseur Trading Inc., Esterline Corp., Graybar Corp., Harpo Corp., InLight Limited, Kalitta Corp., Plus Brokerage Inc., Prolific Trading Inc., and Zettaworld Corp.
Applicable Rule
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss claims without a court order at any time before the defendants serve an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The opinion also notes that courts within the Second Circuit have held that this rule permits dismissal against fewer than all defendants.
Ruling
The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ notice was effective, without a court order, to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against the identified defendants without prejudice. The opinion does not state that claims against the other defendants were dismissed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.