Quality Professional Industries Inc. v. Sun Power Corporation et al

Filing 57

ORDER Closing Case In Light of Unopposed Request to Dismiss Case with Prejudice, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/3/2015. CASE CLOSED(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MARY ANN G. QUILALA, et al,

7
8
9
10
11

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1390 AWI BAM

Plaintiffs
v.
SUN POWER CORP., et al,

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF
UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO DISMISS
CASE WITH PREJUDICE

Defendants
(Doc. No. 54)

12
13
14

This case was transferred to this Court on September 11, 2015, from the District of Hawaii.

15

On October 14, 2015, defense counsel for Defendant Matriscope Engineering and Robert Tadlock

16

filed a Notice of Voluntary dismissal and Notice of Settlement. See Doc. Nos. 54, 55. The Notice

17

of Dismissal is a form from the Central District of California. See Doc. No. 54. The dismissal

18

form is not one that is used in the Eastern District of California, but the form is signed by both

19

Plaintiffs (who are pro se) and indicates that it is a dismissal of the entire action due to a

20

settlement. See id. The Notice of Settlement is signed only by counsel for Defendants Matriscope

21

Engineering Laboratories and Robert Tadlock. See Doc. No. 55. Prior to the filing of these

22

notices, Defendants Mortenson Construction and Tom Gunkel filed an answer. See id. at Doc.

23

No. 21. Mortenson Construction and Gunkel did not sign the Notice of Dismissal, nor have they

24

otherwise responded to the Notice of Dismissal or Notice of Settlement. In fact, there have been

25

no filings by any party subsequent to the October 14 notices.

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or all

27

of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy

28

Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer, but has

1

not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal must be effected through

2

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose,

3

111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided

4

in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on

5

terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a

6

motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer

7

some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

8

Here, because Defendants Mortenson Construction and Gunkel have filed an answer,

9

Plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss their lawsuit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Wilson, 111 F.3d

10

at 692. However, because Plaintiffs are pro se, and there appears to be a settlement, the Court will

11

view the Notice of Dismissal as a request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). See Greenberg v.

12

Centurion Inv. Grp., 145 F.R.D. 610, 612 (S.D. Fla. 1993). So viewing the notice, dismissal is

13

appropriate. The answer of Defendants Mortenson Construction and Gunkel contains no

14

counterclaims, over two weeks have passed without any response from any party following the

15

filing of the notices (which means the requested dismissal is essentially unopposed), and the case

16

appears to be settled. Given these considerations, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and close

17

this case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

18
19

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

20

1.

Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal, which is construed as a request for dismissal under

21

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), is GRANTED (Doc. No. 54) is

22

GRANTED; and

23

2.

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 3, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2