Hill v. Watkins, 3:17-cv-00494

Plaintiff Albert G. Hill, III filed suit and on October 24, 2017 filed a "Motion to Dismiss" seeking voluntary dismissal of all claims against defendants.
No defendant had filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment at the time Hill filed his motion/notice.
Defendants Jeffrey Tillotson and Michael Lynn did not oppose dismissal but asked the court to dismiss with prejudice and award attorney’s fees and costs.
The court treated Hill’s motion as a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of dismissal because a plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss before an answer or summary-judgment motion is filed.
The court held that the dismissal became effective by operation of law on October 24, 2017 and ordered the clerk to dismiss the action without prejudice and terminate pending dispositive motions.
The court allowed defendants to seek attorney’s fees and costs by filing appropriate motions with supporting authority by a specified deadline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Plaintiff may unilaterally dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)	Hill sought voluntary dismissal of all claims by filing the motion/notice	Defs did not oppose dismissal but wanted dismissal with prejudice and fees/costs	Plaintiff has an absolute right to dismiss without prejudice because no answer or summary-judgment motion was filed; court treated the filing as a Rule 41(a)(1) notice and dismissal was effective by operation of law
Whether the court can convert Hill’s styled “motion” into a Rule 41 notice	Hill styled his filing as a motion but intended to dismiss	Defs did not contest characterization; sought other relief (prejudice/fees)	Court construed the filing as a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (Williams v. Ezell precedent)
Whether the court may attach conditions to a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal	N/A — Hill sought dismissal without conditions	Defs sought dismissal with prejudice and attorney’s fees/costs	Court held it lacks power to deny or attach conditions to Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal; dismissal is self-effectuating (Bechuck/In re Amerijet)
Whether defendants may seek attorneys’ fees/costs after voluntary dismissal	N/A — Hill did not seek fees	Defs requested fees and costs but submitted no supporting authority	Court noted it retains jurisdiction to consider collateral issues like fees and sanctions; permitted defendants to file proper motions with authority by a deadline

In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967 (5th Cir. 2015) (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) prevents unilateral dismissal only after an answer or summary-judgment motion is filed)
Harvey Specialty & Supply, Inc. v. Anson Flowline Equip. Inc., 434 F.3d 320 (5th Cir. 2005) (plaintiff’s absolute right to voluntary dismissal before answer or summary judgment)
Bechuck v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 814 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2016) (a notice of dismissal is self-effectuating; courts lack power to deny or condition Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals but may address collateral issues)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmax Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (1990) (district courts may impose Rule 11 sanctions and award attorney’s fees even after voluntary dismissal)
Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2013) (voluntary dismissal does not deprive courts of jurisdiction to award attorneys’ fees)
Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1976) (characterizing a styled "motion to dismiss" as a Rule 41 notice when plaintiff’s intent to dismiss is clear)