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)

Download PDF
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?