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