Visconti v. Pinto

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Maha Visconti’s action against multiple defendants. The court treated Visconti’s notices as voluntary dismissals of claims against several defendants and dismissed the remaining claims against Albert Gregory Pinto without prejudice for failure to effect service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and D.C. Local Civil Rule 83.23. The court denied the motion to dismiss filed by Judge Elaine W. Mandel and Emily Sam as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate the case.

Holdings

1. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against Mandel and Sam under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), so the Court dismissed those claims and denied Mandel and Sam's motion to dismiss as moot.
2. Plaintiff dismissed her claims against Khodadian and the Doe defendants under Rule 41(a) because those defendants had not been served or responded, and Plaintiff's notice stated that she intended to proceed only against Pinto.
3. The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against Pinto without prejudice for failure to effect service within 90 days, because more than 250 days had elapsed, Plaintiff had not served Pinto, and she had not shown good cause for another extension.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Plaintiff's notices of voluntary dismissal dismissed her claims against Mandel, Sam, Khodadian, and the Doe defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).
2. Whether the claims against Pinto should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to effect service within the period required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
3. Whether Mandel and Sam's motion to dismiss should be denied as moot after Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against them.

Disposition

dismissed