Feinberg et al v. Dauphin County Social Services for Children and Youth et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HADASSAH FEINBERG, et al., 	: 	CIV. NO. 1:25-CV-768
:
Plaintiffs, 	: 	(Judge Saporito)
:
v. 	: 	(Magistrate Judge Carlson)
:
DAUPHIN COUNTY CHILDREN 	:
AND YOUTH, et al., 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS CASE IS AS FOLLOWS:
At 8:44 p.m. on November 25, 2025, Feinberg-Harris emailed the court, all
counsel, and numerous third parties expressing the intention to voluntarily dismiss
this case in its entirety. On this score, Rule 41(a)(1)-(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure provides as follows:
(a) Voluntary Dismissal.(1) By the Plaintiff.(A) Without a Court
Order. Subject to Rules 23(e), 23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable
federal statute, the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order
by filing:(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either
an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or(ii) a stipulation of
dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.(B) Effect. Unless
the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without
prejudice. But if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-
court action based on or including the same claim, a notice of dismissal
operates as an adjudication on the merits.(2) By Court Order; Effect.
Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the
Case 1:25-cv-00768-JFS Document 83 Filed 12/03/25 Page 1 of 3

2
plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers
proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served
with the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over
the defendant's objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending
for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a
dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.
F.R.Civ. P., Rule 41(a)(1)-(2).
In order to impose some measure of order on the litigative chaos which has
ensued in this case we ordered Ms. Feinberg-Harris to: (1) confirm whether she has
discharged her estranged spouse as counsel in this case; and (2) file a pleading on
the docket confirming her request to voluntarily dismiss this case by December 1,
2025. We also ordered that upon receipt of any motion to voluntarily dismiss filed
by the plaintiffs, on or before December 7, 2025, the defendants shall identify what
terms, if any, they believe would be proper to incorporate into any proposed
dismissal.
On November 26, 2025, Ms. Feinberg Harris complied with our order and
filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) which sought to
dismiss this case without prejudice. (Doc. 81). It appears that the plaintiff may be
able to act in this fashion since she has filed this notice “before the opposing party
serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1).
However, we are aware that it appears that this is the second time that the plaintiff
Case 1:25-cv-00768-JFS Document 83 Filed 12/03/25 Page 2 of 3

3
has voluntarily dismissed these claims. In such circumstances Rule 41 provides that
“if the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or
including the same claim, a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication on the
merits.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties address the following issues
by December 7, 2025: (1) whether the plaintiff may dismiss this case by notice
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1); (2) whether Rule 41(a)(1)(B) requires that this notice
operate as an adjudication on the merits; and (3) whether the defendants continue to
intend to seek sanctions following the voluntary dismissal to this action.
SO ORDERED, this 3d day of December 2025.
S/Martin C. Carlson
Martin C. Carlson
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cv-00768-JFS Document 83 Filed 12/03/25 Page 3 of 3