Gemeinschaft zum Schutz des Berliner Baumbestandes v. Marienthal

No. 78-1836 (D.D.C. May 31, 1979)

In a previous decision, 9 ELR 20011, the court declined to issue a preliminary injunction against construction of an apartment complex in West Berlin because plaintiffs failed to present a substantial case on the merits that the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act have been violated. The court grants defendants' motion to dismiss the action with prejudice because plaintiffs have not indicated a willingness to proceed with the action.

Counsel for the parties are listed at 9 ELR 20011.

[9 ELR 20506]

Richey, J.:

This action is before the court on the motion of the defendants to make the dismissal of this action with prejudice. At a status call in this action on April 27, 1979, the plaintiffs indicated that they anticipated dismissing this action, but had not received final word from their clients. The court requested that the plaintiffs dismiss the action without prejudice pending client approval of the plaintiffs' actions. Furthermore, the court indicated that the plaintiffs would be given ten (10) days in order to contact their clients to determine whether they still desired to proceed with this action, and that after the expiration of this ten (10) day period, the defendants could move to have the dismissal made with prejudice, unless the plaintiffs indicated they were prepared to proceed. After the expiration of the 10-day period, the defendants filed the motion sub judice to have the dismissal made with prejudice. The plaintiffs have not indicated that their clients are ready to proceed with this action. Therefore, the court finds that the defendants' motion is meritorious. If the plaintiffs are unwilling to proceed at this time, the defendants should be free from the fear of the possibility of a later suit. Once a party brings a lawsuit, it becomes in the public interest to proceed as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, upon consideration of the entire record herein, it is, by the court, this 31st day of May 1979,

ORDERED, that the motion of the defendant to have the dismissal of this action be with prejudice be, and the same hereby is, granted; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that this action be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, with prejudice.