Langendorf v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, S.I.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
KENNETH S. LANGENDORF, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
vs. 	) 	Case No. 4:25-cv-1732-MTS
)
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL 	)
INSURANCE COMPANY, S.I., 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on review of Plaintiff’s “Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal.” 	Doc. [16]. 	It purports to unilaterally dismiss this action without prejudice.
See id. It does not do so. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff can dismiss an action
without a court order via “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an
answer or a motion for summary judgment” or by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all
parties who have appeared.” 	Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). 	See also Exxon Corp. v. Md.
Cas. Co., 599 F.2d 659, 661 (5th Cir. 1979) (explaining Rule 41(a)(1)’s limitation entitles
a defendant, once it has “actively engaged in the defense of a suit” to have the case
adjudicated and prevents dismissal “without either his consent, permission of the court, or
a dismissal with prejudice that assures him against the renewal of hostilities”).
Here, Defendant has filed an Answer in this action. 	See Doc. [8]. 	Thus, Plaintiff
cannot file a notice of dismissal, and this action remains live. 	See Wilson v. Crouse-
Hinds Co., 556 F.2d 870, 873 (8th Cir. 1977) (“A unilateral dismissal or amendment
Case: 4:25-cv-01732-MTS Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

- 2 -
cannot be accomplished . . . after an answer has been filed.”); Welsh v. Correct Care,
L.L.C., 915 F.3d 341, 344 (5th Cir. 2019) (explaining that the filing of an amended
complaint 	does 	not 	revive 	the 	plaintiff’s 	absolute 	right 	to 	dismissal 	under 	Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) (citing Armstrong v. Frostie Co., 453 F.2d 914, 916 (4th Cir. 1971))). 	To
avoid confusion, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to strike Plaintiff’s ineffective
Notice 	of 	Voluntary 	Dismissal. 	Plaintiff 	may 	file 	a 	stipulation 	of 	dismissal, 	if
appropriate, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), or Plaintiff may seek an order of
dismissal, see id. at 41(a)(2); Perkins v. Frye, 151 F.4th 968, 971 (8th Cir. 2025)
(explaining Rule 41(a)(2) prevents voluntary dismissals that unfairly affect the other
side). 	See also Doc. [13] at 2 (instructing the parties to “comply with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure”). In the meantime, this case remains live.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff’s
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Doc. [16], from the record.
Dated this 30th day of December 2025.
MATTHEW T. SCHELP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case: 4:25-cv-01732-MTS Doc. #: 17 Filed: 12/30/25 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>