From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Peterson v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Dec 13, 2018
Case No. 5:16-cv-00366 KGB (E.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)

Opinion

Case No. 5:16-cv-00366 KGB

12-13-2018

IDA M. PETERSON PLAINTIFF v. SEARS, ROEBUCK, AND CO. DEFENDANT


ORDER

Before the Court is the parties' joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice (Dkt. No. 24). The stipulation accords with the terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court notes that defendant Sears, Roebuck, and Co. filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 through 1330, as amended (Dkt. No. 25). As a dismissal of this action does not require the Court to consider issues related to the underlying case, the dismissal will not constitute a continuation of the judicial proceeding and is therefore not barred by the automatic stay. For good cause shown, the Court adopts the stipulation of dismissal (Id.). The action is dismissed with prejudice, and each party will bear its own costs and fees.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the automatic stay does not "preclude another court from dismissing a case on its docket or to affect the handling of a case in a manner not inconsistent with the purpose of the automatic stay." Dennis v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 860 F.2d 871, 872 (8th Cir. 1988) (holding that the automatic stay did not prevent a district court from dismissing a bankrupt plaintiff's action for failure to follow the district court's local rules). Other courts have held that the automatic stay does not prevent a court from dismissing a case against a debtor on the motion of the plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). See Settles v. C.I.R., 138 T.C. 372, 376 (T.C. 2012) (holding that dismissal of a bankrupt petitioner's case under Rule 41(a) did not violate the automatic stay); Arnold v. Garlock Inc., 288 F.3d 234, 237 (5th Cir. 2002) (same); Slay v. Living Ctrs. E., Inc., 249 B.R. 807 (S.D. Ala. 2000) (same); Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. V. Celotex Corp., 852 F. Supp. 226 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (same). --------

So ordered this 13th day of December, 2018.

/s/_________

Kristine G. Baker

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Peterson v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Dec 13, 2018
Case No. 5:16-cv-00366 KGB (E.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)
Case details for

Peterson v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co.

Case Details

Full title:IDA M. PETERSON PLAINTIFF v. SEARS, ROEBUCK, AND CO. DEFENDANT

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Date published: Dec 13, 2018

Citations

Case No. 5:16-cv-00366 KGB (E.D. Ark. Dec. 13, 2018)