NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
v.
ONE LIFESTYLE MANAGEMENT, LLC
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The NLRB sought to enforce a subpoena duces tecum against One Lifestyle Management, LLC. After the court issued a show cause order, the respondent produced the requested documents, substantially complying with the subpoena, and the NLRB moved for voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
The NLRB may voluntarily dismiss the action because the respondent has not yet entered an appearance or served an answer or motion for summary judgment, satisfying the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
[1] A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing p…
[2] A party seeking enforcement of a subpoena duces tecum may voluntarily dismiss its application without prejudice if the respondent substantially complies with the subpoena…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to seek voluntary dismissal of an action by filing "a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment."”
Establishes the legal standard for when voluntary dismissal is permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe NLRB filed an application for an order requiring One Lifestyle Management to comply with subpoena duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ. The court issued a show…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Petitioner National Labor Relations Board's ("Petitioner") Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. [17]. In the Motion, Petitioner explains that it asked the Court to issue an Order requiring that Respondent comply with subpoena duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ. See ECF No. [17] at 1. The Court thereafter issued an Order directing Respondent to appear before this Court and show cause why an order should not issue directing Respondent to produce the requested documents. Id.; ECF No. [12]. Following the entry of the Order to Show Cause, Respondent produced documents responsive to subpoena duces tecum B-1-1MWVHNZ on May 2, 4, 6, and 9, 2025, and upon its review of the documents, Petitioner determined that Respondent's production substantially complied with the subpoena. See ECF No [17] at 2. Accordingly, Petitioner “requests the voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum" pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Id. at 1-2.
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-20632-LENARD/Elfenbein
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to seek voluntary dismissal of an action by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Here, Respondent has not yet entered an appearance in the matter, so Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss this action. Accordingly, I respectfully RECOMMEND that the Motion, ECF No. [17], be GRANTED; that the Amended Application for Order Requiring Obedience to Subpoena Duces Tecum, ECF No. [4], be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and that the case be CLOSED.
The Parties will have fourteen (14) days from the date of being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, with the Honorable Joan A. Lenard, United States District Judge. Failure to timely file objections shall bar the Parties from a de novo determination by the District Judge of an issue covered in the Report and shall bar the Parties from attacking on appeal unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F. 2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989); 11th Cir. R. 3-1.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on May 13, 2025.
Marty Eb MARTY FULGUEIRA ELFENBEIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: All Counsel of Record
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1985)
- Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1989)