Mara Finch v. Block Incorporated, et al.

Summary

The court denies McDonald’s motion for reconsideration of its prior decision declining to apply claim preclusion to the plaintiff’s claims. Although the plaintiff’s two prior voluntary dismissals technically triggered the two-dismissal rule, the court concludes that applying claim preclusion would not serve its underlying policies and would create a manifest injustice because the prior actions involved no substantive litigation. The court grants defendants’ alternative request for an extension and requires responsive pleadings by March 20, 2026.

Holdings

1. The two-dismissal rule is narrower than the broader claim-preclusion doctrine, and its application does not automatically require preclusion of all claims when applying claim preclusion would not serve its underlying policies and would produce manifest injustice.
2. Defendants established good cause for an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, but the request for a stay pending resolution of reconsideration was moot.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court committed manifest error by declining to dismiss Plaintiff's claims under claim preclusion after finding that Rule 41(a)(B)(1)'s two-dismissal rule applied.
2. Whether Defendants were entitled to a stay or, alternatively, an extension of time to file responsive pleadings.

Disposition

other