McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump
Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:18-cv-09936
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In McKoy v. The Trump Corporation, Judge Schofield dismissed Millard Williams’s claims without prejudice after requiring contact information for possible subpoenas.
Millard Williams’s claims were dismissed without prejudice. The case otherwise continues, and Defendants may seek to subpoena Williams as a non-party witness if necessary.
What happened
Catherine McKoy, Marcus Frazier, and Lynn Chadwick v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump involved a request to voluntarily dismiss Plaintiff Millard Williams from the case. Williams told Plaintiffs’ counsel that he no longer wished to continue, and Defendants opposed the request.
The court found that four of the five factors it considered favored dismissal: Williams acted promptly, there was no evidence of improper conduct, the case would continue without him, and Defendants’ litigation efforts would not be wasted. Although Williams gave no detailed reason for leaving the case, the court also found that Defendants would suffer no legal prejudice.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield dismissed Williams’s claims without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The dismissal was conditioned on Williams providing Defendants with an address or other contact information so they could serve him with a subpoena if his testimony were needed at a deposition or trial.
The detailed version
- McKoy v. The Trump Corporation and Donald J. Trump · No. 1:18-cv-09936
- Lorna Schofield
- Sept. 29, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Millard Williams sought voluntary dismissal of his claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Plaintiffs filed a letter about the request on September 16, 2022, and Defendants responded on September 22, 2022.
Court’s analysis
The court applied factors used to evaluate a voluntary-dismissal request, including the plaintiff’s diligence, any improper or vexatious conduct, how far the case had progressed, the defendants’ litigation expenses, the risk of duplicative litigation, and the plaintiff’s explanation for seeking dismissal. Four of the five identified factors favored dismissal. Williams acted diligently and promptly communicated his decision. The court found no evidence that he acted improperly. Although the parties had conducted discovery, the case would continue whether or not Williams remained a plaintiff, so Defendants’ efforts would not be wasted and there was no risk of duplicative litigation.
The factor concerning Williams’s explanation weighed against dismissal because he provided only a general statement that he no longer wished to proceed. Overall, however, the factors favored dismissal. The court also found that Defendants faced no legal prejudice because the claims and issues in the case would remain the same.
Disposition
The court rejected Defendants’ request to condition dismissal on Williams’s agreement to appear for a deposition. The court explained that, after dismissal, Defendants could still subpoena Williams as a non-party witness. The court therefore ordered that Williams’s claims were DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, on the condition that he provide Defendants with his address or other contact information so he could be served with a subpoena if necessary to compel his attendance at a deposition or trial.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.