Merkley v. Continental Labor Resources, Inc. et al

Filing 45

ORDER DISMISSING with prejudice Claims against Defendant C.L. Knox, Inc. d/b/a Advanced Industrial Services, Inc., signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/25/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BENNIE MERKLEY, an individual,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT

Plaintiff,
v.
CONTINENTAL LABOR RESOURCES,
INC.; C.L KNOX, INC. d/b/a
ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT C.L
KNOX, INC. d/b/a ADVANCED
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
(Doc. No. 44)

Defendants.

17
18
19

C.L. KNOX, INC. d/b/a ADVANCED
INSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,

20
21
22
23
24

Counter Claimant,
v.
CONTINENTAL LABOR RESOURCES,
INC.,
Counter Defendant.

25
26

On October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement with defendant C.L. Knox, Inc.

27

d/b/a Advanced Industrial Services (“C.L. Knox”) and a request for voluntary dismissal of

28

defendant C.L. Knox from this action with prejudice. (Doc. No. 44.) Defendant C.L. Knox has
1

1

previously filed an answer in the action and counterclaim against defendant Continental Labor

2

Resources, Inc. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, plaintiff may no longer voluntarily dismiss under

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), but must file a motion for voluntary dismissal under

4

Rule 41(a)(2). Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2) motion requires court

5

approval. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir.

6

1997).

7

A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a

8

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Waller v. Fin. Corp.

9

of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679

10

F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir. 1982). “Legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest,

11

some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97

12

(9th Cir. 1996). A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) normally is without prejudice, as explicitly

13

stated in that rule. However, a dismissal with prejudice so that claims cannot be reasserted in

14

another federal suit strengthens the conclusion that the dismissal causes no legal prejudice and is

15

not an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). In this

16

matter, defendant C.L. Knox will suffer no discernable legal prejudice, plaintiff represents that its

17

claims against C.L. Knox have been settled, and plaintiff furthermore requests that the dismissal

18

of those claims be with prejudice.

19

The court therefore finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant C.L. Knox

20

with prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against defendant C.L. Knox are

21

dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate C.L. Knox’s status as

22

a defendant in the action. This dismissal does not affect C.L. Knox’s status as a counter claimant

23

against counter defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated:

October 25, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2