Opinion
21-CV-3287 (JMF)
02-10-2022
ASHU SHUKLA, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a letter stating that he “hereby abandons this case.” ECF No. 114. Treating the letter as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court endorsed the letter on February 9, 2022, dismissing the case and directing the Clerk of Court to close it. See ECF No. 116. Earlier today, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, explaining that he had a change of heart because, among other things, he “learned that closure of the case will automatically provide immunity to Deloitte Consulting LLP.” ECF No. 118, at 2; see also ECF No. 117.
Plaintiff's motion also asserts that “there was no order by the Judge on this matter” directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. ECF No. 117, at 2. That is immaterial for reasons discussed below, but, in any event, it is also flat wrong. See ECF No. 116.
Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff does not (and could not) take issue with the Court's treatment of his letter “abandon[ing]” this case as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). It is well established that such a notice is “selfexecuting and effective immediately” - even without a court order. Alix v. McKinsey & Co., 470 F.Supp.3d 310, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see, e.g., De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is selfexecuting and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”). Moreover, “‘notices of dismissal filed in conformance with the explicit requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) are not subject to vacatur,' except in certain rare circumstances - not present here - ‘where the merits have been brought before the court before the filing of either the answer or a motion for summary judgment.'” Alix, 470 F.Supp.3d at 317 (quoting Thorp v. Scarne, 599 F.2d 1169, 1176 (2d Cir. 1979), and then Champions League, Inc. v. Big3 Basketball, LLC, No. 17-CV-7389 (LTS) (KHP), 2018 WL 5619973, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018)).
In short, Plaintiff's change of heart is not a valid basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED as meritless and the case remains closed. As noted in the Court's February 9, 2022 endorsement, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 117.
SO ORDERED.