Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-03-2021

Case Style:

Timothy John Erickson and Kim M. Erickson v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Case Number: 3:21-cv-00986-VAB

Judge: Victor A. Bolden

Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:


Best New Have Product Liability Lawyer Directory


Defendant's Attorney: David Anthony DeBassio and Sara Jean Stankus

Description: New Haven, Connecticut personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant on a product liablity theory claiming to have suffered more than $75,000 in injuries and/or damages as a direct result a defective and unreasonably dangerous product.


Outcome: 09/14/2021 22 Memorandum in Support re 18 MOTION to Dismiss Voluntary Dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P.41(a)(2) filed by Kim M. Erickson, Timothy John Erickson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Bloss, William) (Entered: 09/14/2021)
10/08/2021 23 ORDER granting 18 Motion to Dismiss. Courts allow "voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2)... if the defendant will not be prejudiced thereby." Catanzano v. Wing, 277 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2001). The factors the Court should consider in assessing whether defendants will be prejudiced and whether dismissal is appropriate include: (1) "the plaintiff's diligence in bringing the motion," (2) "any undue vexatiousness on plaintiff's part," (3) "the extent to which the suit has progressed, including the defendant's effort and expense in preparation for trial," (4) "the duplicative expense of relitigation," and (5) "the adequacy of plaintiff's explanation for the need to dismiss." Id. at 110 (quoting Zagano v. Fordham Univ., 900 F.2d 12, 14 (2d Cir. 1990)).

Plaintiffs notified the Court soon after the action was removed from state court, the dismissal was not intended to harass Defendants, the litigation is currently in very early stages, there is no concern about relitigating, and Plaintiffs' rationale, the filing of a state-court action against Defendants in Maryland relating to the same set of facts at issue in this case, is satisfactory. See In re Solv-Ex Corp. Sec. Litig., 62 F. App'x 396, 398 (2d Cir. 2003) (affirming grant of voluntary dismissal when "(1) plaintiffs did not delay in bringing the motion; (2) there is no suggestion that plaintiffs were attempting to harass [defendant] by pursuing their legal claims; (3) the action has progressed very little and, as no discovery has taken place, the expense to [defendant] has been relatively minimal; (4) plaintiffs' explanation for dismissing the action... is entirely reasonable."). Accordingly, Plaintiffs motion for voluntary dismissal is GRANTED without prejudice to renewal, with each party bearing its own costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.

Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/08/2021. (Lee, Diana) (Entered: 10/08/2021)
10/08/2021 24 ORDER finding as moot 17 Motion. In light of the Court's recent Order, ECF No. 23, Defendant's motion to delete Stanley Black & Decker, Inc. as an improperly named party is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/08/2021. (Lee, Diana) (Entered: 10/08/2021)
10/08/2021 25 ORDER finding as moot 16 Motion to Dismiss. In light of the Court's recent Order, ECF No. 23, Defendant's motion to dismiss or for transfer to the District of Minnesota is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/08/2021. (Lee, Diana) (Entered: 10/08/2021)
10/08/2021 26 ORDER DISMISSING CASE. In light of the Court's Order, ECF No. 23, granting Plaintiffs' 18 Motion to Dismiss, the Clerk of Court respectfully is directed to administratively close this case. Signed by Judge Victor A. Bolden on 10/08/2021. (Lee, Diana) (Entered: 10/08/2021)

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: