Caraballo-Melia et al v. Suarez-Dominguez et al, No. 3:2008cv02205 - Document 140 (D.P.R. 2009)

Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER - DENYING Plaintiffs' 125 Second Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jaime Pieras, Jr. on 9/24/2009. (mld)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO ANGà LICA CRISTINA CARABALLO-MELIà , et al., Plaintiffs v. CIVIL NO. 08-2205 (JP) ALBERT SUà REZ-DOMà NGUEZ, et al., Defendants OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs second motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice (No. 125), as well as Defendant Albert Suárez-Domínguez s ( Suárez ) opposition thereto (No. 127) and Defendant Servicios Médicos Universitarios opposition thereto (No. 129). Article 1802 of Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to the Puerto Rico Civil malpractice on the part of Defendants. Code alleging medical For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion for dismissal without prejudice is hereby DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a Plaintiff may move for voluntarily dismissal of a case by Court order. The purpose of such rule is to freely permit a Plaintiff to dismiss an action, with court approval, as long as there is no prejudice suffered by any other party. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. Leith, 668 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1981). The district court is responsible CIVIL NO. 08-2205 (JP) -2- under Rule 41 for exercising its discretion to ensure that such prejudice will not occur. (1st Cir. 2000). Doe v. Urohealth Sys., 216 F.3d 157, 160 In deciding whether to grant a plaintiff s motion under Rule 41(a)(2), courts generally analyze the defendant's effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and the fact that a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant. Id. at 160 (quoting Pace v. Southern Express Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1969)). However, a court need not consider each factor or limit its analysis to these factors only. Id. Plaintiffs submit the instant motion requesting a voluntary dismissal without prejudice because Plaintiffs could not afford to produce their expert witness, Dr. Elliot Goodman, for the Court ordered deposition that was scheduled for August 28, 2009. In the instant case, Defendants efforts in preparing for trial warrant denying prejudice. the request Defendants Conference Memoranda, submitted various have for prepared prepared expert voluntary two their summary reports, dismissal Initial Scheduling judgment answered without motions,1 Plaintiffs interrogatories, produced the documents requested by Plaintiffs, and filed and responded to numerous motions. 1. Also, assuming the ISC Although one of them was stricken, Defendant Servicios Médicos Universitarios still spent time and effort preparing the motion. CIVIL NO. 08-2205 (JP) -3- Order has been complied with, Defendants have had to produce various witnesses for depositions to be taken by Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court concludes that granting voluntary dismissal at this stage would cause prejudice to Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with an insufficient explanation for the need to dismiss the action without prejudice. At such a late stage in the proceedings, the burden of expert witness fees is not a sufficient ground for dismissal. The case is a week from the pretrial conference and less than a month from trial. When Plaintiffs requested leave to change their expert witness, they should have anticipated the necessary expenses of producing the expert. Plaintiffs cannot come to the Court, either at this juncture or after Defendant had filed its motion for summary judgment, prejudice requesting because that of the the Court dismiss Plaintiffs the case inadequate without planning. Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th day of September, 2009. s/Jaime Pieras, Jr. JAIME PIERAS, JR. U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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.