Cartagena v. Schroeder, et al.
Filing
23
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS With Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 5/11/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HERTA CARTAGENA,
12
13
14
15
16
17
No. 1:16-cv-01728-DAD-BAM
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE
THOMAS R. SCHROEDER and
THOMAS R. SCHROEDER AND
DEBRA L. SCHROEDER, as Trustees of
the Thomas R. Schroeder and Debra L.
Schroeder Revocable Living Trust,
(Doc. No. 21)
Defendants.
18
19
On May 4, 2017, plaintiff Herta Cartagena filed a notice of settlement and a motion to
20
dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
21
Procedure. (Doc. No. 21.) Defendants Thomas R. Schroeder and Debra L. Schroeder had
22
previously filed an answer in this case. (Doc. No. 7.) Accordingly, plaintiff may not voluntarily
23
dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), but must instead file a motion
24
for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) and has done so. Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of
25
dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2) motion requires court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); Wilson v.
26
City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
27
28
A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a
defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Waller v. Fin. Corp.
1
1
of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679
2
F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir. 1982). “Legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest,
3
some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97
4
(9th Cir. 1996). A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) normally is without prejudice, as explicitly
5
stated in that rule. However, a dismissal with prejudice so that claims cannot be reasserted in
6
another federal suit strengthens the conclusion that the dismissal causes no legal prejudice and is
7
not an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). In this
8
matter, defendants will suffer no discernable legal prejudice, and plaintiff furthermore requests
9
that the dismissal be with prejudice.
10
The court therefore finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendants with
11
prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss with prejudice pursuant to
12
Rule 41(a)(2) (Doc. No. 21) is granted, plaintiff’s claims are dismissed with prejudice, and the
13
Clerk of the Court is directed close this case.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated:
May 11, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?