Schaeffer et al v. Piccolo Properties, L.P. et al

Filing 298

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AS TO DEFENDANTS CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., MB ENTERPRISES, INC., MASSOUD ENRAHIMI, AND BHAGDEEP S. DHALIWAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 289 Motion to Dismiss. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/24/2015) - Correction of docket 296.

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST

Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
10

GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et
al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AS TO
DEFENDANTS CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.,
MB ENTERPRISES, INC., MASSOUD
ENRAHIMI, AND BHAGDEEP S.
DHALIWAL
Re: ECF No. 289

13

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for voluntary dismissal as to Defendants

14
Chevron U.S.A. Inc., MB Enterprises, Inc., Massoud Enrahimi, and Bhagdeep S. Dhaliwal,
15
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court will grant the motion.
16
I.
17

BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2011, Plaintiffs Ryan, Anne, and Reese Schaeffer (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit

18
against Chevron U.S.A. Inc., MB Enterprises, Inc., Massoud Enrahimi, and Bhagdeep S. Dhaliwal
19

(the “Chevron and MBE Defendants”), and others, in Contra Costa County Superior Court

20
alleging personal injury and environmental contamination. ECF No. 1. The action was then
21
removed to this Court. Id. Plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence,
22

ultrahazardous activity, waste, cost recovery under California’s Hazardous Substance Account

23
Act, and for violations of Business and Professions Code §17200. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the
24
Chevron and MBE Defendants owned and controlled property at the time hazardous wastes were
25
26

“handled, generated, transported, disposed of, used, stored, and/or released into the environment
from dry cleaning tenants and the service station operations.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 3.

27
On July 1, 2015, the Chevron and MBE Defendants filed their motion for good faith
28

1

settlement determination. ECF No. 255. On July 8, 2015, Plaintiffs submitted a joinder in support

2

of the motion. ECF No. 262. The Plaintiffs and the Chevron and MBE Defendants agreed,

3

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, to a general release of all claims

4

against the Chevron and MBE Defendants in exchange for their settlement payment of $205,000

5

to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 256, Ex. A. On August 31, 2015, the Court granted the motion for good

6

faith settlement determination. ECF No. 282.
On September 28, 2015, the parties filed the instant motion to voluntarily dismiss the case,

7
8

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), with prejudice. ECF No. 289. The motion

9

is unopposed.

10

II.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs the voluntary dismissal of an action by the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

12

plaintiff. A plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of the parties in an action.

13

See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726

14

(citations omitted). “[A] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless a

15

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches,

16

263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001); Waller v. Financial Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th

17

Cir.1987). “Plain legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or]

18

some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996).

19

The Court may dismiss with or without prejudice, but “[u]nless the order states otherwise, a

20

dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2).

21

III.

DISCUSSION

22

Plaintiffs and the Chevron and MBE Defendants jointly move for the action to be

23

dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 289. The parties also request that the motion be granted with

24

“settling parties to bear their own fees and costs as between the settling parties.” Id.

25

The Court must first consider, under Rule 41(a), whether dismissal of the Chevron and

26

MBE Defendants would result in legal prejudice to any other Defendants in this action. Per Civil

27

Local Rule 7-3(a), any oppositions to the joint motion were due no later than October 20, 2015.

28

No Defendants filed an opposition to the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the Chevron and
2

1

MBE Defendants. The Court concludes no Defendant will suffer plain legal prejudice as a result

2

of its dismissal from the action with prejudice. See Lenches, 263 F.3d at 975. In exchange for

3

settlement, Plaintiffs have already agreed to a release of all claims against the Chevron and MBE

4

Defendants. ECF No. 256, Ex. A.

5

The parties have also requested that the Court order the settling parties to bear their own

6

fees and costs. ECF No. 289. The Court finds that dismissal of the Chevron and MBE Defendants

7

with prejudice is appropriate and orders that the settling parties bear their own fees and costs

8

related to this action.
CONCLUSION

9

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss all

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

claims against the Chevron and MBE Defendants with prejudice. The settling parties are to bear

12

their own fees and costs.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 23, 2015

15
16
17

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3