United States of America v. Lucas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
V.
Dr. Jennifer Bush, in her capacity
as guardian for Joseph Earl Lucas,1
etal.,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:23-cv-2813
Judge Michael H. Watson
Magistrate Judge Vascura
OPINION AND ORDER
The parties jointly move the Court to dismiss with prejudice Defendants
Jacob Bush, Emily Bush, Jeremy Carr, and Joie Carr pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 21. ECF No. 86. In support, the parties represent that they have
executed a settlement agreement encompassing these Defendants. Id.
Rule 21 permits a court to, "[o]n motion or on its own,... at any time, on
just terms, add or drop a party. " Rule 21 applies when a plaintiff seeks to dismiss
Jess than an entire case. Fekieh v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 1:20-CV-
1989, 2021 WL 2400949, at *2(N. D. Ohio June 11, 2021). "[W]hen evaluating a
motion for dismissal under Rule 21, courts should consider Rule 41 standards as
guidance for analyzing potential prejudice to the non-movants. " Murray Energy
1 The Court granted Defendant Lucas's motion to substitute Dr. Bush, in her capacity as
guardian ad litem, for him in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25
ECF No. 85. Accordingly, the case caption is amended to reflect the same.
Case: 2:23-cv-02813-MHW-CMV Doc #: 88 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

Corp. v. Cassidy, Cogan, Chappel, & Voegelin, L. C., No. 2.-18-CV-440, 2020 WL
4201666, at *1 (S. D. Ohio July 22, 2020) (citation omitted). And, when
considering prejudice pursuant to dismissal under Rule 41, "a court should
consider such factors as the defendant's effort and expense of preparation for
trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in
prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal,
and whether a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant."
Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F. 3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).
Upon review, the Court finds the parties' motion to be well taken. The
Court concludes that the remaining Defendant will not be prejudiced by the
dismissal, 2 and the parties have provided a sufficient explanation for the
dismissal-the execution of a settlement agreement. The parties' motion is
proper under Rule 21, and the Court GRANTS the same. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
claims against Defendants Jacob Bush, Emily Bush, Jeremy Carr, and Joie Carr
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
MICHAEL H. WA SON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2 The Court notes that the parties noticed their intent to dismiss as early as September
2025, see ECF No. 73, and no objections have been lodged.
Case No. 2:23-cv-2813 Page 2 of 2
Case: 2:23-cv-02813-MHW-CMV Doc #: 88 Filed: 03/16/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>