George v. Professional Disposables International, Inc., 1:15-cv-03385

Plaintiff Saju George worked at Professional Disposables, Inc. (PDI) and alleges wrongful termination (national origin, race, and age) after employment ended in January 2014.
George filed a federal complaint in April 2015 and an amended complaint in December 2015; PDI moved to dismiss in part and the parties engaged in discovery including depositions and multiple discovery disputes before Magistrate Judge Moses.
The Court granted PDI’s partial motion to dismiss many claims and later dismissed all claims against individual defendants for inadequate service; the Court warned George’s counsel about frivolous filings.
PDI moved for summary judgment in late 2016; George did not oppose and filed a motion seeking voluntary dismissal without prejudice the same day PDI filed for summary judgment.
George simultaneously filed a duplicative state-court action alleging the same injuries; PDI opposed federal dismissal without prejudice as unfair and prejudicial given its litigation efforts.
The Court denied George’s Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss without prejudice, found the Zagano factors weigh against dismissal, and gave George a choice: withdraw the motion and proceed or permit the Court to convert dismissal to one with prejudice (deadline provided).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) should be granted	George sought dismissal to refile in state court (requested dismissal without prejudice)	PDI argued dismissal would prejudice it after two years of litigation, completed discovery, and a pending summary judgment motion; duplicative state suit shows bad motive	Denied: Court held Zagano factors disfavor dismissal without prejudice and may convert to dismissal with prejudice if motion not withdrawn
Whether plaintiff acted diligently in seeking dismissal	George waited until the day summary judgment was due to move to dismiss	PDI: plaintiff had many prior opportunities to dismiss but did not; delay is prejudicial	Held: Plaintiff was not diligent; delay weighs against dismissal
Whether plaintiff’s conduct was vexatious/acted in bad faith	George claimed desire to litigate in state court	PDI pointed to duplicative state suit and prior assurances he would proceed in federal court	Held: Court found undue vexatiousness/ill motive (duplicative filing and misleading conduct)
Whether relitigation would unfairly burden defendant	George offered no adequate justification beyond refiling in state court	PDI showed substantial expense: discovery, motions to dismiss, and summary judgment preparation	Held: Relitigation would cause duplicative expense and prejudice; this factor weighs against dismissal

Zagano v. Fordham Univ., 900 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1990) (sets five-factor test for Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal)
Gravatt v. Columbia Univ., 845 F.2d 54 (2d Cir. 1988) (district court may convert intended without-prejudice dismissal into dismissal with prejudice after notice)
Galasso v. Eisman, Zucker, Klein & Ruttenberg, 310 F. Supp. 2d 569 (S.D.N.Y.) (denial of voluntary dismissal where discovery completed and summary judgment pending)