“In the context of a partial settlement, Rule 41(a)(2) is usually the mechanism by which the settling defendants are eliminated from the case.”
How later courts described this case
- “In the context of a partial settlement, Rule 41(a)(2) is usually the mechanism by which the settling defendants are eliminated from the case.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MYRNA ABRIL, individually, andas_ )
Special Administrator of Estate of )
Vicente Abril, deceased, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) Case No. 22-cv-528-DWD
)
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., )
et al., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
DUGAN, District Judge:
This case comes before the Court on the Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 56) filed by
Plaintiff Myrna Abril and Defendant York International Corporation. For the reasons
detailed below, this Motion will be denied, without prejudice.
In this matter, Plaintiff seeks damages related to the death of her spouse, Vicente
Abril, and his exposure to asbestos-containing products allegedly “manufactured,
designed, labeled, distributed, supplied, or sold” by Defendants (Doc. 1-1).! On March
16, 2022, Defendant York removed the case to this Court asserting jurisdiction under the
federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (Doc. 1). York claims that if Mr. Abril
was exposed to any of its asbestos-containing products, the exposure occurred while Mr.
1These Defendants include Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, Atwood & Morrill, Aurora Pump Company,
Cameron International, Crane Co., FMC Corporation, Gardner Denver, Inc., General Electric Company,
Goulds Pumps LLC, Hercules, LLC, Honeywell International Inc., IMO Industries Inc., ITT Corporation,
John Crane, Inc., Johnson Controls, Inc., Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., Union Carbide Corporation,
Velan Valve Corp., ViacomCBS, Inc., Warren Pumps, LLC, Weil-McLain Company, Inc., and York
International Corporation.
Abril was serving in the U.S. Navy, and therefore those products were manufactured by
York at the direction of an officer of the United States within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §
1442(a)(1) (Id.).
By their Joint Motion, Plaintiff and Defendant York ask this Court to dismiss just
Defendant York from this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).
However, a plain reading of Rule 41(a) suggests that dismissal under this rule should be
used only to dismiss “an action” rather than a particular claim against a particular
defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit has consistently
instructed that “Rule 41(a) should be limited to dismissal of an entire action,” “’which is
to say, the whole case.”” Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Berthold
Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 777 (7th Cir. 2001)). When seeking to cleave
away particular claims or parties froma larger case, plaintiffs should proceed under Rule
15(a) and file an amended complaint or seek leave to do so as may be required. See Taylor,
at 858 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)).
The Court acknowledges that other courts, including judges in this District, have
found it appropriate to allow the dismissal of fewer than all the parties or claims under
Rule 41(a) in appropriate circumstances. Possibly in recognition of the impracticality or
burden of requiring the repeated filing of amended complaints each time a claim against
a defendant is settled, some Courts have in the past determined that the interests of
judicial economy may weigh in favor of using Rule 41(a) rather than Rule 15(a) to dismiss
fewer than all the parties or claims. See, e.g., Hall et. al. v. Air & Liquid Systems Corp., et al.,
Case No. 15-CV-01344 (S.D. III. Sept. 23, 2016) (Rosenstengel, J.) (citing Quad/Graphics, Inc.
v. Fass, 724 F.2d 1230, 1233 (7th Cir. 1983) (“In the context of a partial settlement, Rule
41(a)(2) is usually the mechanism by which the settling defendants are eliminated from
the case.”)). Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit has recently discouraged this practice, and
instead urges compliance with the plain language of Rule 41. See Dr. Robert L. Meinders,
D.C., Ltd. v. United Healthcare Seros., Inc., 7 F.Ath 555, 559 n.4 (7th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e again
remind parties and district courts that Rule 15(a) is the better course for voluntarily
dismissing individual parties or claims in the future.”).
In light of those instructions, the Court finds it appropriate to abide by the plain
language of Rule 41 here. The Joint Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 56) is therefore DENIED,
without prejudice. Plaintiff should instead seek to dismiss particular parties or claims
under Rule 15(a).
SO ORDERED. U
Dated: April 18, 2022
DAVIDW.DUGAN
United States District Judge