Arnold v. Beemer Haus LLC

Filing 21

ORDER granting Plaintiff's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss with Prejudice, 17 , and denying Defendant's Rule 11 Motion, 20 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED instructing the Clerk to enter judgment in accordance with this ruling and close this case. Signed by Judge Susan M Brnovich on 1/11/2022. (REK)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Gregory Arnold,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-21-01450-PHX-SMB

Beemer Haus LLC,

13

Defendant.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss this Action

16

with Prejudice. (Doc. 17.) Defendants responded and—in the same document—moved

17

for Rule 11 sanctions. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion.

18

(Doc. 18.) Having considered the parties’ briefing and relevant case law, the Court will

19

grant Plaintiff’s Motion and deny Defendant’s for reasons explained below.

20

I.

DISCUSSION
A. Dismissal

21
22

Plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (Doc. 17 at 1.) Rule 41 provides that “an action may be

24

dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers

25

proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Essentially, Rule 41 requires a two-step analysis: (1)

26

whether to dismiss; and (2) if so, whether to do so with or without prejudice and on what

27

terms.

28

(determining that under Rule 41, a “suit may be dismissed with or without prejudice, and

Id.; see also United States v. Berg, 190 F.R.D. 539, 543 (E.D. Cal. 1999)

1

the dismissal may be conditioned on terms that are proper and necessary to avoid prejudice

2

to the defendant”).

3

A motion for voluntary dismissal should ordinarily be granted unless “defendant

4

can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Clerisy

5

Corp. v. Airware Holdings, Inc., No. CV 12-2110-PHX-PGR, 2013 WL 6252428, * 2 (D.

6

Ariz. Dec. 4, 2013) (citing Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). Here,

7

there is no concern of Defendant being prejudiced as Defendant agrees with Plaintiff’s

8

Motion. (See Doc. 20 at 1.) Consequently, the Court will dismiss the case with prejudice.

9

B. Sanctions

10

Defendant requests that Plaintiff pay its attorney fees pursuant to Federal Rule of
(Id.)

Plaintiff responds that Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion is

11

Civil Procedure 11.

12

procedurally deficient and substantively unsupported. (Doc. 18 at 1.) Because the Court

13

is persuaded by the former argument, it will not address the latter.

14

Rule 11 contains a safe harbor provision that requires the party seeking sanctions to

15

serve the allegedly offending party with a copy of the motion for sanction 21 days before

16

filing said motion with the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(C)(2). If the offending party corrects

17

the issue within that 21-day period, then “the motion must not be filed or be presented to

18

the court.” Id.; see also Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 710 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The purpose

19

of the safe harbor, however, is to give the offending party [a 21-day] opportunity . . . to

20

withdraw the offending pleading and thereby escape sanctions.”).

21

Here, Defendant failed to serve a motion for Rule 11 sanctions 21 days prior to filing

22

its motion with the Court. Thus, their request must be denied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(C)(2).

23

II.

CONCLUSION

24

Therefore,

25

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss with

26

Prejudice, (Doc. 17), and denying Defendant’s Rule 11 Motion, (Doc. 20).

27

///

28

///

-2-

1
2
3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED instructing to the Clerk to enter judgment in
accordance with this ruling and close this case.
Dated this 11th day of January, 2022.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-