Universidad Central Del Caribe, Inc. v. Liaison Committee on Medical Education

How courts have described this case

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

• commenting that, under a prior but substantially identical version of the Rule, it “does not require the intervention of the court.”
• noting that Armstrong stands for the proposition that \a plaintiff cannot supersede the cutting off of its right to give notice of voluntary dismissal by filing an amended complaint after an answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant\
• stating that a Rule 41(a) dismissal “itself closes the file . . .” and, after a Rule 41(a) dismissal, “[t]here is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play.”
• “[A] plaintiff cannot supersede the cutting off of its right to give notice of voluntary dismissal by filing an amended complaint after an answer ... has been filed by the defendant.” (citing Armstrong v. Frostie Co., 453 F.2d 914 (4th Cir. 1971))
• “Other than to determine, should the question arise, whether an answer or a motion for summary judgment has in fact been filed prior to the filing of a notice of dismissal, a court has no function under Rule 41(a)(1)().”
• ʺ[A] plaintiff cannot supersede the cutting off of its right to give notice of voluntary dismissal by filing an amended complaint after an answer . . . has been filed by the defendant.ʺ (citing Armstrong v. Frostie Co., 453 F.2d 914 (4th Cir. 1971))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).