Rusfeldt v. City of New York, New York, 1:22-cv-00594

Pastor Aden Rusfeldt (Plaintiff) seeks to dismiss Defendant Hughes from his lawsuit with prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(2).
Plaintiff has already stipulated that Defendant Hughes is entitled to qualified immunity, rendering further claims against him moot in Plaintiff's view.
The case is scheduled for trial on June 16, 2025; Plaintiff wishes to avoid potential jury confusion from having Hughes remain as a defendant.
Defendants oppose the motion to dismiss Hughes at this time but do not intend to file written opposition unless requested by the Court.
The request includes that each party—Pastor Aden and Hughes—bears its own attorney’s fees and costs, arguing no frivolous or unreasonable claims were pursued against Hughes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Dismissal of Hughes with prejudice	Proper due to stipulated qualified immunity and risk of jury confusion; no prejudice to Hughes	Oppose timing of dismissal; do not contest in writing unless requested	Not yet decided (motion pending)
Plain legal prejudice	None since Hughes would get favorable adjudication; city's strategic interests do not amount to legal prejudice	No showing of plain legal prejudice	Not yet decided
Attorney’s fees and costs	Each party should bear its own; claim against Hughes wasn’t frivolous and did not generate additional costs	No stated opposition	Not yet decided
Use of dismissal for trial continuance	Dismissal won’t be used for continuance request	Not contested	Not yet decided

Camilli v. Grimes, 436 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2006) (explains standard for dismissal with and without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2))
Colombrito v. Kelly, 764 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985) (addresses when attorney’s fees and costs may be granted in Rule 41 dismissals)
Zagano v. Fordham Univ., 900 F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1990) (sets forth the five-part test for dismissals without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2))