Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Milota v. Hexion Specialty Chemicals Canada, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Oregon

April 16, 2015

DEANNA MILOTA, Plaintiff,
v.
HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS CANADA, INC., MOMENTIVE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS CANADA, INC., MOMENTIVE SPECIALTY CHEMICALS, INC., a New Jersey Corporation, and MOMENTIVE PERFORMANCE MATERIALS HOLDING, LLC, Defendants.

Mark M. McCulloch, Trish A. Walsh, FARLEIGH WADA WITT, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Leah C. Lively, Sean M. Driscoll, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.

OPINION & ORDER

MARCO A. HERNNDEZ, District Judge.

Plaintiff Deanna Milota moves for voluntary dismissal of this action, without prejudice. The Court finds the motion unnecessary as to Defendants Hexion Specialty Chemicals Canada, Inc.; Momentive Specialty Chemicals Canada, Inc.; and Momentive Performance Materials Holding, LLC; because Plaintiff can submit a notice of dismissal and dismiss these defendants as a matter of right. The Court grants the motion as to Defendant Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc. ("MSC America").

BACKGROUND

The background facts of the case are provided in detail in this Court's February 17, 2015, Opinion & Order. While the Court does not repeat those facts here, it is worth noting that Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, filed November 26, 2014, stated that Plaintiff sought dismissal based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Plaintiff indicated in a letter to the Court that Plaintiffs dismissed the lawsuit because of a January 2014 United States Supreme Court decision that resulted in a lack of general jurisdiction over any of the defendants in this case. See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 741 (2014). The Court granted Plaintiff's motion, but then granted Defendants relief from the motion in order to afford Defendants the opportunity to seek fees and costs. Opinion & Order, February 17, 2015, [69].

In requesting relief from the Court's Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, Defendants argued their position based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Plaintiffs submitted a reply where they did not dispute that Rule 41(a)(2) was the rule at issue, and this Court issued its February 17, 2015 Opinion & Order pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Nevertheless, Plaintiff now asserts that Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is the correct rule to apply to its Motion.

STANDARDS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides the rule under which a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case:

(a) Voluntary Dismissal.
(1) By the Plaintiff.
(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing:
(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.