Lancaster v. City of Pleasanton et al

Filing 99

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT MARTENS by Hon. William Alsup granting 94 Motion to Dismiss.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/2/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
BRIAN LANCASTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 12-05267 WHA

ORDER DISMISSING
DEFENDANT MARTENS

v.
CITY OF PLEASANTON, et al.,

15

Defendants.
/

16
17

At a settlement conference with Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu, plaintiff and defendant

18

Martens settled their dispute and plaintiff agreed to dismiss defendant Martens without

19

prejudice. All other defendants except defendant Lesley Regina agreed to stipulate to the

20

dismissal, forcing plaintiff to file a formal motion to dismiss defendant Martens.

21

Defendant Regina objects that if the dismissal of defendant Martens is without prejudice

22

then plaintiff could vexatiously multiply the proceedings by re-filing the same claims against

23

defendant Martens, presumably in bad faith. Defendant Regina contends the dismissal should be

24

with prejudice; otherwise, plaintiff should be forced to “respond to Officer Martens’ summary

25

judgment motion.”

26

Assuming without deciding that defendant Regina has standing to raise this objection on

27

defendant Martens’ behalf, the objection is OVERRULED. Defendant Regina’s objection is

28

purely

1

speculative and the Court will not force the parties to litigate a dispute they have settled.

2

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Martens are accordingly DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6

Dated: July 1, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2