Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Farber v. County of Suffolk

December 1, 2009

WILLIAM E. FARBER; MARY F. FARBER; INDIVIDUALLY AND AS THE PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF N.M.F. AND L.A.F.; N.M.F., L.A.F. INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK; OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE STEVE LEVY; SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; LINDA MCOLVIN; JANET DEMARZO; SUFFOLK COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES BUREAU; ILVIS RODRIGUEZ; MICHAEL DELGADO; MARK CLAVIN; THE STATE OF NEW YORK; OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES; DAVID PATTERSON; THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES; GLADYS CARRION; THE STATE OF NEW YORK CENTRAL REGISTRY; DAVID PETERS; THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF LEGAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, STATE OF NEW YORK; CHARLES CARSON; EMILY BRAY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Seybert, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

On July 29, 2009, Plaintiffs commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At the time of the commencement, L.A.F., a minor child, was a party to the action. On October 17, 2009, this Court issued a Memorandum and Order ("October Order") holding that William E. Farber and Mary Farber (collectively, "Mr. and Mrs. Farber"), as non-attorneys, could not represent their minor children, and noting that minor children may not proceed pro se. Accordingly, the Court directed Mr. and Mrs. Farber to either obtain counsel for any minor Plaintiffs or file a motion for appointment of counsel for such parties. The Court noted that any non-minor child wishing to proceed pro se must sign the Complaint, and warned that it would dismiss the Complaint as to any minor children if Plaintiffs failed to comply by December 11, 2009.

On November 2, 2009, Plaintiffs filed their current letter application. In that motion, Plaintiffs seek to (1) voluntarily dismiss the claims of minor L.A.F., (2) maintain the sealed status of this action, and (3) amend the Complaint. All told, Plaintiffs' application consists of one page, and does not contain a memorandum of law in support of any motion, nor does it contain a Proposed Amended Complaint. In response, Defendants opposed the second and third applications and gave no indication as to whether they consented to dismissal of L.A.F.'s claims. Finally, by a letter dated November 25, 2009, Defendants consented to the withdrawal of L.A.F.'s claims.

BACKGROUND

For a more detailed discussion of the factual background of this case, see the Court's October Order.

DISCUSSION

I. Voluntary Dismissal of L.A.F.'s Claims

Rule 41 provides in relevant part:

(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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.