Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Malibu Media, LLC v. Shekoski

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 15, 2015

MALIBU MEDIA, LLC., Plaintiff,
v.
GERALD SHEKOSKI, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. #30)

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Malibu Media (Malibu) filed an amended motion to dismiss without prejudice under F.R.C.P. 41. Defendant Gerald Shekoski opposes the motion in that he seeks dismissal with prejudice.

Plaintiff's amended motion for dismissal without prejudice is GRANTED.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Malibu filed a Complaint against a John Doe IP address alleging direct copyright infringement. The Complaint was later amended to include the Defendant's name. During discovery, a dispute arose over whether Plaintiff would be allowed to have its expert do an in depth analysis of the Defendant's hard drive; the Court allowed the analysis based on Plaintiff's representation that if it did not find evidence of direct infringement, Plaintiff would dismiss the case. No evidence of direct infringement was found; Plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal. III. ANALYSIS

i. Standard of Review

A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case under F.R.C.P. 41. A voluntary dismissal may be accomplished by stipulation (F.R.C.P. 41(a)(1)), or by court order (F.R.C.P. 41(a)(2)).

The Court considers four factors in determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss without prejudice: (1) the defendant's effort and expense in preparing for trial;

(2) excessive delay or lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff; (3) insufficient explanation of the need for dismissal; and (4) whether the defendant moved for summary judgment. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Pub., Inc., 583 F.3d 948, 953 (6th Cir. 2009).

ii. Analysis of F.R.C.P. 41 Factors

a. Defendant's Effort and Expense

Plaintiff claims that discovery has been very limited, reducing the amount of effort and expense that the Defendant has had to undergo; Defendant does not dispute this assertion. The only discovery conducted has been of Defendant's hard drive by Plaintiff's expert at Plaintiff's expense. There has also been limited motion work, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.