Sturkey v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM and ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 4/2/2015 ORDERING that, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Plaintiff's Request for Dismissal is hereby GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action. Defendants' 4 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JANET J. STURKEY,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.

18
19

Defendant.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Janet J. Sturkey’s unopposed Request for
Dismissal (ECF No. 9). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(2)1 provides:
Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be
dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on
terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has
pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the
plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over
the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain
pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order
states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is
without prejudice.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et
al.

16
17

No. 2:15-cv-00134-MCE-CKD

“[A] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless a defendant can
show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Waller v. Fin. Corp. of
America, 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire &
1

All subsequent references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

1

1

Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145-46 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that

2

“legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal

3

argument.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Westlands

4

Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). Further, mere “uncertainty

5

because a dispute remains unresolved” does not result in plain legal prejudice; nor does

6

uncertainty due to the threat of future litigation. Id. Finally, plain legal prejudice does not

7

result merely because a defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in

8

another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage through dismissal.

9

Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145.

10

Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Request, or otherwise

11

established that they will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of dismissal.

12

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal is hereby

13

GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all parties and all causes

14

of action. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 2, 2015

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2