Harper v. Lindon City, 2:18-cv-00772

Harper purchased a house in Lindon, Utah (Nov. 2017) intending to operate a residential inpatient treatment facility for disabled persons.
He applied to Lindon City for a Fair Housing Act reasonable accommodation to waive the R1-12 zone rule limiting unrelated occupants from eight to sixteen persons.
Nearby residents organized as Fair Care Lindon, LLC intervened and opposed the accommodation; the City Planning Director denied Harper’s request administratively.
Harper sued the City under the FHA and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Fair Care successfully intervened; Harper’s preliminary injunction motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing.
Harper moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) for voluntary dismissal without prejudice and requested an expedited hearing; the City consented to dismissal, Fair Care objected.
The court granted dismissal without prejudice, denied the expedited hearing, struck the scheduled hearing, ordered each party to bear its own costs, and closed the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal should be allowed when defendant consents but intervenor objects	Harper: No counterclaims; City consents; withdrawal of land-use app renders case moot	Fair Care: Dismissal would cause legal prejudice; Harper delaying to avoid adverse rulings	Granted: Court allowed voluntary dismissal; intervenor cannot block dismissal where defendant consents and no counterclaims exist
Whether Fair Care would suffer legal prejudice from dismissal (effort/expense, delay, speculative future harm)	Harper: Fair Care voluntarily expended resources; future applications are speculative, so no legal prejudice	Fair Care: Spent significant time and money; Harper delayed and offered no adequate reason; dismissal preserves ability to refile	Held: No legal prejudice — expenditures were voluntary; speculative future harm insufficient to deny dismissal
Effect of withdrawal of land-use application and administrative finality (mootness/res judicata)	Harper: Withdrawal moots the dispute	Fair Care: Administrative decision final; res judicata and Knox voluntary-cessation concerns mean case not moot	Court: Declined to resolve mootness/res judicata; found those arguments immaterial to Rule 41 dismissal decision
Whether an expedited hearing was required	Harper: Requested expedited hearing on dismissal motion	Fair Care: Objected to aspects of dismissal timing	Denied: Court found oral argument unnecessary and struck the hearing

Brown v. Baeke, 413 F.3d 1121 (10th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41(a)(2) prejudice factors and primary purpose to prevent unfair voluntary dismissals)
Phillips USA, Inc. v. Allflex USA, Inc., 77 F.3d 354 (10th Cir. 1996) (Rule 41(a)(2) allows dismissal on terms the court finds proper)
Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531 (10th Cir. 1997) (absent legal prejudice, district court normally should grant voluntary dismissal)
County of Santa Fe v. Public Serv. Co., 311 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2002) (district court must seek substantial justice for both parties)
Knox v. Serv. Employees Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298 (2012) (voluntary cessation generally does not render a case moot)
Cohen v. DHB Indus., Inc., [citation="658 F. App'x 593"] (2d Cir. 2016) (prejudice in Rule 41 context is generally evaluated as to the party against whom the claim is asserted)
Career Serv. Review Bd. v. Utah Dep’t of Corr., 942 P.2d 933 (Utah 1997) (res judicata applies to administrative adjudications conducted in a judicial capacity)