United States of America v. Dr. Jennifer Bush, in her capacity as guardian for...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION United States of America, Plaintiff, V. Case No. 2:23-cv-2813 Dr. Jennifer Bush, in her capacity Judge Michael H. Watson as guardian for Joseph Ear/ Lucas," et al., Magistrate Judge Vascura Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER The parties jointly move the Court to dismiss with prejudice Defendants Jacob Bush, Emily Bush, Jeremy Carr, and Joie Carr pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. ECF No. 86. In support, the parties represent that they have executed a settlement agreement encompassing these Defendants. /d.

Rule 21 permits a court to, “[o]n motion or on its own, . . . at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Rule 21 applies when a plaintiff seeks to dismiss less than an entire case. Fekieh v. Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 1:20-CV- 1989, 2021 WL 2400949, at *2 (N.D. Ohio June 11, 2021). “[When evaluating a motion for dismissal under Rule 21, courts should consider Rule 41 standards as guidance for analyzing potential prejudice to the non-movants.” Murray Energy The Court granted Defendant Lucas’s motion to substitute Dr. Bush, in her capacity as guardian ad litem, for him in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25.

ECF No. 85. Accordingly, the case caption is amended to reflect the same.

Corp. v. Cassidy, Cogan, Chappel, & Voegelin, L.C., No. 2:18-CV-440, 2020 WL 4201666, at *1 (S.D. Ohio July 22, 2020) (citation omitted). And, when considering prejudice pursuant to dismissal under Rule 41, “a court should consider such factors as the defendant’s effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and whether a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant.”

Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994) (citation omitted).

Upon review, the Court finds the parties’ motion to be well taken. The Court concludes that the remaining Defendant will not be prejudiced by the dismissal,? and the parties have provided a sufficient explanation for the dismissal—the execution of a settlement agreement. The parties’ motion is proper under Rule 21, and the Court GRANTS the same. Accordingly, Plaintiffs claims against Defendants Jacob Bush, Emily Bush, Jeremy Carr, and Joie Carr are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. | | / by MICHAEL H. WA SON. JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT The Court notes that the parties noticed their intent to dismiss as early as September 2025, see ECF No. 73, and no objections have been lodged.

Case No. 2:23-cv-2813 Page 2 of 2