United States District Court, S.D. Illinois
BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, and MICHAEL KEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
FCA U.S. LLC, doing business as Chrysler Group LLC, and HARMON INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Michael J. Reagan United States District Judge.
October 25 and November 7, 2016, Plaintiffs George and Kelly
Brown filed notices of voluntary dismissal of Counts I, II,
VII, VIII, XIV, XV, XXI, and XXII of the amended complaint
(Docs. 136, 139). In an order dated November 22, 2016, the
Court found the voluntary dismissals ineffective based on
Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857-58 (7th Cir.
2015), which notes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41
permits voluntary dismissals of “actions” but not
individual “parties” or “claims.” The
parties were directed either to continue with arbitration or
the Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiffs declined the Court's invitation to
amend and also have indicated that they will not pursue
arbitration (See Doc. 146). As a result, the Court
DISMISSES without prejudice Counts I, II, VII, VIII, XIV, XV,
XXI, and XXII for failure to prosecute. The Court FINDS that
without the arbitrable claims pending, there is no longer
reason for the Browns' claims to be stayed and hereby
LIFTS the STAY ordered on September 23, 2016 (Doc. 114).
review the most recent status report filed by the parties
(Doc. 147), it is clear that the parties disagree on how to
proceed with regards to the non-arbitrable Missouri law
claims. Additional briefing from the parties on these claims
would be beneficial. Accordingly, the Court SETS a new
briefing schedule for the parties. Defendants' motions to
dismiss are due on or before February 6, 2017.
Plaintiffs' response shall be filed on or before March 6,
2017. Defendants' replies, if necessary, shall be due on
or before March 20, 2017. The Court takes Defendant FCA U.S.
at its word that any motions the defendants file will be
directed at claims brought under Missouri law and will not
include new or different arguments than those previously
considered by the Court. Not much time, if any, should be
spent arguing that the plaintiffs have waived their right to
pursue non-arbitrable claims because the Browns did not
 The amended complaint (Doc. 49)
contains multiple counts labeled XIV and XV. Count XIV is
found on pages 69-72 (a Magnuson-Moss Warrant Act claim) and
also on pages 102-05 (a claim brought under Michigan law).
Count XV is found on pages 73-74 (a claim brought under
Missouri law) and pages 105-09 (a claim brought Michigan
law). Based on the history of this case and the Court's
order directing arbitration (Doc. 114), the Court interprets
the notices of voluntary dismissal to refer to the ...