Schaeffer et al v. Piccolo Properties, L.P. et al
Filing
300
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) OF GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P.; VPI, INC.; AND THE KENLOW CORPORATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 299 Motion to Dismiss. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/26/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,
7
Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
9
GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et
al.,
10
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT
TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) OF
GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS,
L.P.; VPI, INC.; AND THE KENLOW
CORPORATION
Re: ECF No. 299
12
Before the Court is the parties’ Motion for Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
13
14
Procedure 41(a)(2) of Gregory Village Partners, L.P.; VPI, Inc.; and the Kenlow Corporation
15
(collectively “Gregory Village Defendants”). ECF No. 299. The Court will grant the motion.1
16
I.
BACKGROUND
17
On September 19, 2013, this personal injury and environmental contamination case was
18
removed to this Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiffs alleged claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence,
19
ultrahazardous activity, waste, cost recovery under California’s Hazardous Substance Account
20
Act, and for violations of Business and Professions Code §17200 against several defendants. Id.
21
They also brought additional claims against Gregory Village for intentional infliction of emotional
22
distress, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation.
23
Id. Plaintiffs sought damages and the abatement of the contamination. Id.
The Gregory Village Defendants settled the case as to them last summer, and filed a
24
25
motion for good faith settlement determination on August 7, 2015. ECF No. 272. The Court
26
27
28
1
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7–1(b), this motion is deemed suitable for disposition without oral
argument, and the hearing scheduled for February 11, 2016, is therefore vacated.
1
granted the motion on September 11, 2015. ECF No. 285.
On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Gregory Village Defendants jointly filed this
2
3
motion to voluntarily dismiss the case with prejudice. ECF No. 299.
4
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, after an opposing party has
5
6
served an answer or motion for summary judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s
7
request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2).
8
A plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of the parties to an action. See Lake at
9
Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1991)
10
(citations omitted).
The decision to grant or deny a request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is within the
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
district court’s sound discretion. Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)
13
(internal citation omitted). However, “[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary
14
dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal
15
prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Waller v. Fin.
16
Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987)). Legal prejudice means “prejudice to some legal
17
interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States,
18
100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996).
19
III.
DISCUSSION
20
Plaintiffs and Defendants Gregory Village Partners and VPI jointly move to dismiss the
21
action as to Gregory Village, VPI, and the Kenlow Corporation2 with prejudice. ECF No. 299.
22
The parties also request that the settling parties “bear their own fees and costs as between the
23
settling parties.” Id.
The Court must first consider whether dismissal of the Gregory Village Defendants would
24
25
result in legal prejudice to any other defendant in the action. The deadline for oppositions to this
26
2
27
28
Plaintiffs previously moved the Court to dismiss the action as to the Kenlow Corporation, to the
extent of insurance coverage available under policies issued by State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company and/or State Farm General Insurance Company. ECF No. 288. The Court granted the
motion. ECF No. 297.
2
1
motion was January 14, 2016, and no opposition was filed. The Court concludes that no defendant
2
will suffer plain legal prejudice as a result of the Court’s granting of this motion. See Lenches,
3
263 F.3d at 975. Additionally, the Court finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate and
4
orders that the settling parties bear their own fees and costs.
CONCLUSION
5
6
The Court grants the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss all claims against Gregory Village,
7
VPI, and the Kenlow Corporation with prejudice. The settling parties are to bear their own fees
8
and costs.
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 26, 2016
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?