Timothy S. Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Van Ridgeway, Charles Hilton, and Robert Chandler

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• determining that a motion to, stay the case and compel arbitration is not an answer or motion for summary judgment for purposes of Rule 41
• “A motion to compel arbitration . . . is not the equivalent of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
• a motion to compel arbitration was not the functional equivalent of a summary judgment motion, so the plaintiffs notice of dismissal must be recognized
• “The language of Rule 41(a)(1)(i) mandates [dismissal] and we are not free to amend or alter the rule as the appellees have urged us to do.”
• under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), “[a] motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings is not the equivalent of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”
• “Courts have consistently upheld notice dismissals 1 following a wide variety of other substantive motions filed by defendants before answering.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).