Legal Opinion
Loubier v. Modern Acoustics, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided February 20, 1998No. 3:97CV01200 (GLG)PublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*18 Memorandum Decision
GOETTEL, Senior District Judge.
Defendants have moved this Court to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint based upon the two-dismissal rule set forth in Rule 41(a)(1), Fed. R.Civ.P. Alternatively, in the event this action is not dismissed, they have moved pursuant to Rule 41(d) for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees incurred by them in defending similar actions dismissed or abandoned by plaintiffs and for a stay of this action pending plaintiffs’ payment of any such award.
For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion to dismiss will be denied. Defendants’ motion for costs…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- American Cyanamid Company v. Robert A. McGheeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1963
- Poloron Products, Inc. (With Substitution Applied for by Dynamark Corporation, Assignee) v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, and Third-Party v. Poloron Products of Indiana, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Esquivel v. ArauDistrict Court, C.D. California · 1996
- Zucker v. KatzDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Fred Engelhardt, D/B/A Engelhardt's Camera Store v. Bell & Howell Company, a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1962
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Stephen E. Duffy Sue Ann Duffy v. Ford Motor CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
- Rivera v. MelendezDistrict Court, D. Puerto Rico · 2013
- Adams v. New York State Education DepartmentDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- Feature Realty, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLPWashington Supreme Court · 2007
- Oteng v. Golden Star Resources, Ltd.District Court, D. Colorado · 2009
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.