Singleton v. Entergy Operations Inc, No. 2:2015cv02132 - Document 60 (E.D. La. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS finding as moot 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. Granting 53 Motion to Dismiss Case. Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 10/16/2017. (cg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Singleton v. Entergy Operations Inc Doc. 60 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CARRIE SINGLETON CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-2132 ENTERGY OPERATIONS, INC. SECTION “R” (2) ORD ER AN D REASON S Before the Court are defendant Entergy Operations, Inc.’s m otion for sum m ary judgment 1 and plaintiff Carrie Singleton’s m otion for voluntary dism issal with prejudice. 2 For the following reasons, plaintiff’s m otion is granted, and defendant’s m otion is denied as m oot. I. BACKGROU N D This is a Title VII case, in which plaintiff alleges that defendant unlawfully term inated and retaliated against her because of her race. Plaintiff, who is black, was em ployed as a security officer at defendant’s nuclear plant in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. 3 During a training activity on October 7, 20 13, plaintiff purportedly pointed her handgun at other 1 2 3 R. Doc. 41. R. Doc. 53. R. Doc. 1 at 2 ¶¶ 5-6. Dockets.Justia.com em ployees, a violation of a safety rule. 4 Defendant term inated plaintiff’s em ploym ent shortly thereafter. 5 Plaintiff alleges that white employees who com m itted sim ilar safety infractions were not term inated. 6 After she filed a charge of discrim ination with the EEOC on November 20 , 20 13, and received a right-to-sue letter on March 20 , 20 15, plaintiff brought suit on J une 15, 20 15. 7 Defendant m oved for sum m ary judgm ent on August 29, 20 17. 8 Plaintiff did not oppose this m otion; instead, she m oved for voluntary dism issal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 9 In response to plaintiff’s m otion, defendant agreed that the action should be dism issed with prejudice, but requested that the Court either (1) rule on the (unopposed) sum m ary judgment m otion, or (2) grant plaintiff’s m otion to dism iss with prejudice and award costs to defendant. 10 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Id. at 3 ¶ 11. Id. at 3 ¶ 14. Id. at 3 ¶¶ 15-16. Id. at 3-4 ¶ 17. R. Doc. 41. R. Doc. 53. R. Doc. 54. 2 II. D ISCU SSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) perm its a plaintiff to dism iss her claim s “only by court order, on term s that the court considers proper.”11 “[M]otions for voluntary dism issal should be freely granted unless the nonm oving party will suffer som e plain legal prejudice.” Elbaor v. Tripath Im aging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 20 0 2). A dism issal with prejudice generally does not legally harm the defendant. This is because dism issal with prejudice operates as “a com plete adjudication of the issues presented by the pleadings and is a bar to a further action between the parties.” Schw arz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 1985) (quoting Sm oot v. Fox, 340 F.2d 30 1, 30 3 (6th Cir. 1964)). Moreover, “[b]ecause a dism issal with prejudice is tantam ount to a judgm ent on the m erits, the defendant . . . is clearly the prevailing party and should ordinarily be entitled to costs.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) (“Unless a federal statute, these rules, or a court order provides otherwise, costs . . . should be allowed to the prevailing party.”). Here, dism issal with prejudice would not legally harm defendant. Defendant first contends that it has spent considerable tim e and resources 11 Plaintiff cannot dism iss this action by right under Rule 41(a)(1) because defendant has filed both an answer and a sum m ary judgment m otion and has not stipulated to dism issal. 3 on its sum m ary judgm ent m otion. It is true that “[w]here the plaintiff does not seek dism issal until a late stage and the defendants have exerted significant tim e and effort, the district court m ay, in its discretion, refuse to grant a voluntary dism issal.” Hartford Acc. & Indem . Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc., 90 3 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir. 1990 ). But the tim ing of a plaintiff’s voluntary dism issal bears only on dism issal w ithout prejudice, which subjects the defendant “to the potential of additional litigation expenses.” Schw arz, 767 F.2d at 129. When the plaintiff seeks to dism iss w ith prejudice, the defendant will not have to expend additional resources in a separate litigation related to the sam e claim . Defendant also notes that it has defended this case, which it views as frivolous, for over two years. For this reason, defendant argues, it deserves a judicial finding that there is no evidence of race discrim ination in this case. But dism issal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the m erits; thus, “defendant receives all that [it] would have received had the case been com pleted.” Id. The Court therefore grants plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dism issal with prejudice. Because plaintiff has voluntarily dism issed her claim s against defendant, the Court need not reach the m erits of defendants’ m otion for sum m ary judgment. With regard to costs, the Court directs the parties to 4 follow the procedures described in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(1) and Local Rule 54. III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s m otion for voluntary dism issal. The Court DENIES defendant’s m otion for sum m ary judgm ent as m oot. Plaintiff’s com plaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJ UDICE. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _16th _ day of October, 20 17. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 5
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
