The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that it was proper for the District Court to deny plaintiff’s motion for a voluntary dismissal and to subsequently grant plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the suit was barred by the Statute of Limitations.
In Wojtas v. Capital Guardian Trust Co. 477 F3d 924 (7th Cir. 2007), the suit was filed in the W.D. of Wisconsin. Plaintiff moved for a voluntary dismissal without prejudice after the defendant filed its motion requesting dismissal based on Wisconsin’s two year Statute of Limitations. Plaintiff requested the voluntary dismissal in order to re-file in Illinois where there was a longer Statute of Limitations that would not bar the cause of action.
The District Court held that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice would constitute “plain legal prejudice” that would make a voluntary dismissal improper under Rule 41 (a)(2). The Court of Appeals agreed and said,
“Capital, having acquired a right to assert the Statute of Limitations bar by operations of Wisconsin law, would suffer plain legal prejudice if the Wojtases’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal were granted. See Metro. Fed. Bank, 999 F.2d at 1263 (it is an “abuse of discretion for a District Court to find no legal prejudice, and thus to grant voluntary dismissal, where the nonmoving party has demonstrated a valid Statute of Limitations defense”); see also Phillips, 874 F.2d at 987. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal.”