Jorge L. Ruiz Limon v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 45

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING by Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.: The parties on May 10, 2023 filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice. Dkt. No. 42 . Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court retains jurisdiction to consider whether to impose sanctions for the parties violation of its scheduling order, as discussed in the May 8 order to show cause re: sanctions (OSC). Dkt. No. 39 . See Cooter & G ell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990) (holding that voluntary dismissal does not deprive court of authority to issue Rule 11 sanctions because "the imposition of a Rule 11 sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action. Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue: whether the attorney has abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate"); Mireskandari v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 665 F. App'x 570, 572 (9th Cir. 2016) (relying on Cooter to affirm Rule 16(f) sanctions imposed after voluntary dismissal for pre-dismissal violation of scheduling order). The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions in response to the OSC and will address them at the hearing tomorrow. (jgr)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE L. RUIZ LIMON,

Case No. 2:22-cv-06263-SB-MRW

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: DISMISSAL AND
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
HEARING

v.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.

The parties on May 10, 2023 filed a stipulation to dismiss this action with
prejudice. Dkt. No. 42. Accordingly, the action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court retains jurisdiction to consider whether
to impose sanctions for the parties’ violation of its scheduling order, as discussed
in the May 8 order to show cause re: sanctions (OSC). Dkt. No. 39. See Cooter &
Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990) (holding that voluntary
dismissal does not deprive court of authority to issue Rule 11 sanctions because
“the imposition of a Rule 11 sanction is not a judgment on the merits of an action.
Rather, it requires the determination of a collateral issue: whether the attorney has
abused the judicial process, and, if so, what sanction would be appropriate”);
Mireskandari v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd., 665 F. App’x 570, 572 (9th Cir.
2016) (relying on Cooter to affirm Rule 16(f) sanctions imposed after voluntary
dismissal for pre-dismissal violation of scheduling order). The Court has reviewed
the parties’ submissions in response to the OSC and will address them at the
hearing tomorrow. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: May 11, 2023

___________________________
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.
United States District Judge

1