Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School, Inc. et al v. Grafilo, et al

Filing 49

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 6/28/2021 DENYING Plaintiff's the 37 Motion to Drop Plaintiff Esteban Narez. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

PACIFIC COAST HORSESHOEING
SCHOOL, INC.; BOB SMITH; and
ESTEBAN NAREZ,

11
12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

No. 2:17-cv-02217-JAM-GGH

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DROP
PLAINTIFF ESTEBAN NAREZ

DEAN GRAFILO, et al.,
Defendants.

15

Before the Court is Esteban Narez’s (“Narez” or “Plaintiff”)

16
17

Motion for an order granting his request to be dropped as a

18

plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

19

ECF No. 37.

20

Plaintiff replied.

21

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.1

Mot. to Drop (“Mot.”),

Defendants oppose this motion.
Reply, ECF No. 42.

Opp’n, ECF No. 41.

For the reasons set forth

I.BACKGROUND

22

In October 2017, Plaintiff joined Pacific Coast Horseshoeing

23
24

School (“PCHS” or the “School”) and its owner, Bob Smith

25

(“Smith”) in filing this lawsuit challenging California’s Private

26
27
28

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
scheduled for June 8, 2021.
1
1

1

Postsecondary Education Act of 2009 (the “Act”), CAL. EDUC. CODE

2

§§ 94800 et seq. on First Amendment grounds.

3

Compl., ECF No. 1.

4

of high school and did not subsequently earned his high school

5

diploma or GED – but could not because he did not meet the Act’s

6

ability-to-benefit requirements for enrollment at a private

7

postsecondary educational institution.

8

77.

9

judicial declaration that the ability-to-benefit requirement is

10

PCHS wanted to admit Narez – who dropped out

Id. at 7–8 ¶¶ 63–64, 75-

This lawsuit followed, seeking injunctive relief and a

unconstitutional.

11

See generally

Id. at 11-12.

In April 2018, the Court dismissed the lawsuit.

See

12

Dismissal Order, ECF No. 21.

13

reversed and remanded.

14

2020, the parties commenced discovery.

15

Smith timely responded to Defendants’ written discovery requests,

16

but Narez did not.

17

extend the case schedule to give Narez more time to respond to

18

these outstanding discovery requests.

19

34.

20

May 19, 2021.

21

In June 2020, the Ninth Circuit

See USCA Opinion, ECF No. 29.

Id.

Opp’n at 4.

In August
PCHS and

In March 2021, the parties agreed to

See Stipulation, ECF No.

On April 19, 2021, Defendants noticed Narez’s deposition for
Opp’n at 4.

On April 28, 2021, Narez filed the present Motion to

22

withdraw as a plaintiff.

See generally Mot.

23

circumstances have changed in the three and a half years since

24

the filing of the lawsuit; specifically, he is now “dealing with

25

family health issues . . . has moved away from his last known

26

address, no longer wishes to remain a party or seek relief from

27

this Court, and has ceased communication with his attorneys in

28

this action.”

Id. at 2.
2

His life

1

II.

OPINION

2

A.

Legal Standard

3

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 governs the addition or

4

withdrawal of parties, providing that “on motion or on its own,

5

the court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.”

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 21.

7

withdraw a party pursuant to Rule 21 must determine “whether such

8

action will prejudice the non-moving party, and whether it will

9

serve to avoid multiplicity of suits.”

Courts considering requests to add or

Heilman v. Cook, No. 14-

10

cv-1412-JLS(MDD), 2017 WL 727672 at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24,

11

2017)(internal citation omitted).

12

moving party will defeat a Rule 21 motion.” Sable Commc’ns of

13

Cal. Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co., 890 F.2d 184, 191 n.13 (9th

14

Cir. 1989) (internal citations omitted).

15

Thus, “prejudice to the non-

A plaintiff generally “should not be compelled to litigate

16

if [he] doesn’t wish to.”

In re Tezos Sec. Litig., No. 17-cv-

17

06779-RS, 2019 WL 2183448, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019)

18

(internal citations omitted); see also In re Snap Inc. Sec.

19

Litig., 394 F.Supp.3d 1156, 1157 (C.D. Cal. 2019).

20

district court’s discretion to permit substitutions or additions

21

of parties is not a requirement that it do so.”

22

Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 2017).

However, “a

Mendoza v.

23

B.

Analysis

24

Defendants contend they would be prejudiced if Plaintiff

25

were permitted to withdraw before he responded to outstanding

26

discovery requests.

27

operative complaint continues to rely extensively on allegations

28

regarding Plaintiff; and indeed, Plaintiff remains the only

Opp’n at 5-12.

3

First, they point out the

1

person identified in the complaint as subject to the enrollment

2

prerequisite.

3

Plaintiff is therefore necessary to test the allegations

4

concerning him.

5

the complaint as requiring discovery from Narez).

6

Defendants argue that Plaintiff is in unique possession of

7

information directly relevant to whether the challenged

8

enrollment prerequisite serves any governmental interest and

9

whether it does so in an appropriately tailored manner.

Id. at 1.

Obtaining party discovery from

Id. at 6-7 (listing paragraphs 72, 73, 77-80 of
Second,

Id. at 7

10

(citing to Pac. Coast Horseshoeing Sch. v. Kirchmeyer, 961 F.3d

11

1062, 1068 (directing this Court to apply some form of heightened

12

scrutiny to Plaintiffs’ challenge)).

13

that party discovery from Plaintiff is also essential to their

14

defense that the enrollment prerequisite satisfies heightened

15

scrutiny.

16

withdrew and they were instead forced to resort to third-party

17

discovery under Rule 45.

18

Defendants therefore argue

For these reasons, prejudice would result if Plaintiff

Id. at 9-10.

Plaintiff responds that the fact that he has discoverable

19

information about factual allegations is not a ground for denying

20

the Motion and that if that were the standard, such motions to

21

drop would be “ungrantable.”

22

contention, Plaintiff distinguishes one of Defendants’ cited

23

cases, In re Exxon Valdez, 102 F.3d 429, 432 (9th Cir. 1996).

24

Reply at 2; see also Opp’n at 9.

25

of little utility to either party because Rule 21 was not at

26

issue in that case.

27

voluntary dismissal under Rules 42(a)(2) and 37.

28

Valdez, 102 F.3d at 432-433.

Reply at 1.

To support this

However, In re Exxon Valdez is

Rather the discussion there was limited to

4

See In re Exxon

1

Significantly, Plaintiff did not submit a declaration in

2

support of this Motion.

3

solely upon his counsel’s declaration.

4

seek leave to amend the complaint in conjunction with this

5

Motion.

6

perceived prejudice to Defendants from dropping Esteban can be

7

addressed by [the Court] directing those remaining Plaintiffs to

8

amend their complaint to remove the allegations that cannot be

9

proved without Esteban’s testimony.”

Id.

See generally Mot.
Id.

The Motion is based
Nor did Plaintiff

Rather, the reply brief merely notes that “any

Reply at 3.

This is

10

insufficient.

11

address Defendants’ contention that they would be prejudiced by

12

Plaintiff’s withdrawal; and prejudice to the non-moving party

13

defeats a Rule 21 motion.

14

F.2d at 191 n.13 (internal citations omitted).

15

Specifically, this statement fails to meaningfully

See Sable Commc’ns of Cal. Inc., 890

Finally, Defendants raise an argument that “the

16

circumstances and timing of [Plaintiff’s] withdrawal warrant

17

special consideration.”

18

Sec. Litig., 394 F.Supp.3d at 1157-1158(denying lead plaintiff’s

19

attempt to withdraw on a delayed basis)).

20

attempting to withdraw years after the complaint was filed, after

21

the Ninth Circuit has already relied upon his participation in

22

reversing a prior dismissal of the case, and after written

23

discovery requests have been propounded and his deposition has

24

been noticed.

25

avoid discovery obligations is improper.

26

declaration from Plaintiff setting forth his reasons for

27

withdrawing or a proposed amended complaint that removes all

28

allegations or references to Esteban, the Court cannot assess

Opp’n at 9 (citing to In re Snap Inc.

Opp’n at 2, 8-9.

Here, Plaintiff is

Using Rule 21 as a shield to

5

However, without a

1
2

whether this Rule 21 Motion is being used in such a manner.
In the absence of such a declaration or proposed amended

3

complaint and in the absence of any meaningful effort to

4

demonstrate that Defendants would not be prejudiced by his

5

withdrawal, Plaintiff’s Rule 21 motion to be dropped as a party

6

fails.

7
8
9
10
11

III.

ORDER

For the reasons above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 28, 2021

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6