World Skateboarding Federation, Inc. v. International Skateboarding Federation, et al.

Filing 39

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/19/2018 GRANTING 34 Motion to Set Aside the 33 Judgment. The Judgment is VOID, and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice based on the 31 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. CASE CLOSED. (York, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

WORLD SKATEBOARDING
FEDERATION, INC., a California nonprofit corporation,

13

16

ORDER

Plaintiff,

14
15

No. 2:16-cv-02065-KJM-GGH

v.
INTERNATIONAL SKATEBOARDING
FEDERATION, a Pennsylvania non-profit
corporation; GARY REAM, an individual;
and DOES 1 to 20,

17
Defendants.
18
19
After the court granted a motion to dismiss with leave to amend, plaintiff did not

20
21

file a new complaint. Plaintiff also did not respond to a subsequent order to show cause.

22

Defendants requested a dismissal with prejudice, and plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary

23

dismissal without prejudice later the same day. The court later ordered a dismissal with prejudice

24

and entered judgment. Plaintiff now moves to set aside the judgment as void or to amend the

25

judgment. Because the judgment is void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), the

26

court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion. Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal resulted in a dismissal

27

without prejudice.

28

/////
1

1

I.

2

BACKGROUND
World Skateboarding Federation, Inc. (World Skateboarding), filed a complaint in

3

the Superior Court of California, Placer County, naming the International Skateboarding

4

Federation and Gary Ream as defendants. ECF No. 1 at 5–6, Ex. 1. Defendants removed the

5

case to this court. Id. at 1–3. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing in part that this court lacked

6

personal jurisdiction over defendants. ECF No. 4-1 at 9–12. In its order granting defendants’

7

motion to dismiss, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction over defendants, but granted World

8

Skateboarding leave to amend its complaint within fourteen days. ECF No. 28 at 9–10.

9

After World Skateboarding took no action, the court ordered World Skateboarding

10

to show cause, by May 1, why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF

11

No. 29. World Skateboarding did not respond by May 1. Defendants then filed a request for

12

dismissal with prejudice, and World Skateboarding filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without

13

prejudice later the same day. ECF Nos. 30–31. About two months later, the court issued an order

14

dismissing the complaint with prejudice and entering judgment. ECF Nos. 32–33.

15

World Skateboarding now moves to set aside the judgment as void under Federal

16

Rule 60(b)(4) or to amend the judgment and accompanying order to reflect dismissal without

17

prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 34-1. Defendants filed a letter

18

response, stating, “Based on the Court’s ruling that it lacked personal jurisdiction, it appears that

19

the proper order is to dismiss the case without prejudice.” ECF No. 37 at 1. Because the court

20

grants World Skateboarding’s motion to set aside the judgment as void, the court does not address

21

World Skateboarding’s alternative argument to amend the judgment and accompanying order

22

under Rule 59(e).

23

II.

24

LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4), the court “may relieve a party or

25

its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” if “the judgment is void.”

26

For example, where the district court issuing a default judgment lacks personal jurisdiction over

27

the defendant, the default judgment is void and must be vacated. Walker & Zanger (W. Coast)

28

/////
2

1

Ltd. v. Stone Design S.A., 4 F. Supp. 2d 931, 934 (C.D. Cal. 1997), aff’d, 142 F.3d 447 (9th Cir.

2

1998). No time limit applies to a motion to vacate a judgment as void. Id.

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4

World Skateboarding first argues that its filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal

5

without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 deprived the court of jurisdiction to

6

dismiss the case with prejudice and enter judgment. ECF No. 34-1 at 2–3. The court agrees.

7

One way a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case “without a court order” is to

8

file “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for

9

summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This dismissal “is without prejudice” unless

10

the notice states otherwise. Id. 41(a)(1)(B). The Ninth Circuit has plainly stated, “[o]nce the

11

notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims

12

and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.” Duke

13

Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing

14

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999). “[I]t is

15

beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is

16

required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain,

17

and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt., 193

18

F.3d at 1078.

19

Here, defendants had not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment

20

before World Skateboarding filed its notice of voluntary dismissal on May 1. ECF No. 31. The

21

court’s order dismissing the case with prejudice and entering judgment did not occur until more

22

than two months after this notice. ECF Nos. 32–33. Thus, under the federal rules and binding

23

Ninth Circuit authority, this court lacked jurisdiction to have issued that order and entered

24

judgment. The judgment is therefore void under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(4).

25

That the court issued an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to

26

amend, ECF No. 28, does not change the analysis. See Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1265–66

27

(9th Cir. 1970) (holding that an action “was subject to [Rule 41(a)(1)] voluntary dismissal until

28

such time as there was an entry of judgment” even where “[t]he district court heard arguments on
3

1

the motion to dismiss” and “ordered the action dismissed”); Oliver v. Haviland, No. CIV S-08-

2

2282 FCD EFB P, 2010 WL 1010044, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2010). Although a court may

3

convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, the court did not

4

do so here. See ECF No. 28 at 5, 9 (granting Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal

5

jurisdiction); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1142–45 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring district

6

court to “take some affirmative action” to convert Rule 12(b)(6) motion to motion for summary

7

judgment before that motion could preclude Rule 41(a)(1) notice of voluntary dismissal from

8

taking effect).

9

IV.

CONCLUSION

10

The court GRANTS World Skateboarding’s motion to set aside the judgment at

11

ECF No. 33. The judgment at ECF No. 33 is void, and this case is dismissed without prejudice

12

based on World Skateboarding’s notice of voluntary dismissal, ECF No. 31. This case remains

13

CLOSED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 19, 2018.

16
17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4