Anderson et al v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment
Filing
514
ORDER GRANTING 509 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on Conditions. Deadline to accept conditions 4:00 p.m. on 3/5/2020. Deadline to joint updated witness list 12:00 p.m. on 3/6/2020. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on March 4, 2020. (jswlc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2020)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
MARC ANDERSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
SEAWORLD PARKS AND
ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Case No. 15-cv-02172-JSW
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF
MARC ANDERSON'S MOTION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE ON CONDITIONS SET
FORTH HEREIN
Dkt. No. 509
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of Plaintiff Marc Anderson’s
motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice. The Court has considered the parties’ papers,
relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, and it concludes the motion can be resolved
without oral argument. The Court will GRANT the motion for voluntary dismissal, and it
GRANTS, IN PART, AND DENIES, IN PART, Defendant’s requested conditions.
The Court shall not repeat the facts or procedural history of this case with respect to Mr.
Anderson’s claims, which have been set forth in several prior orders. Mr. Anderson moves to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Because Defendant answered and moved
for summary judgment and has not stipulated to dismiss Mr. Anderson’s claims, he may only
dismiss his claims by a court order “on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(i)-(ii), 41(a)(2).
In order to resolve this motion, the Court must answer three questions: (1) whether to
dismiss; (2) whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice; and (3) whether any
conditions should be imposed. See, e.g., Williams v. Peralta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538,
539 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Ultimately, the decision is a matter within the Court’s discretion.
1
Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). However, a court “should
2
grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain
3
legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).1
With respect to the first two questions, Defendant does not oppose dismissal with prejudice
4
5
if the Court adopts four proposed conditions. The Court concludes the request to dismiss should
6
be granted. Based on the parties’ agreement, it also concludes that dismissal with prejudice is
7
warranted. The Court turns to the third and final question, what conditions – if any – should be
8
imposed?
First, Defendant argues the dismissal order should state the dismissal is not the result of
9
any kind of settlement. Mr. Anderson does not oppose that condition. Accordingly, the Court’s
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
Order will include the following language: “The dismissal is not the result of any settlement
12
reached between Mr. Anderson and SeaWorld, and SeaWorld is not providing any compensation
13
or other benefit of any kind to Mr. Anderson, his counsel or any other person or entity as a
14
condition of or result of this dismissal.”
Second, Defendant argues that a dismissal order should make clear that it preserves its
15
16
right to pursue any claims or remedies against Mr. Anderson or his counsel. Mr. Anderson does
17
not oppose this request but asks the Court to include additional language, which would clarify that
18
Defendant’s reservation of rights does not create or revive any rights that Defendant may have
19
waived or abandoned. The Court has considered Defendant’s proposal and it will adopt the
20
abbreviated version of the condition set forth in Defendant’s proposed order. For that reason, the
21
Court concludes that Mr. Anderson’s proposed language is not required to protect his rights or
22
interests.
Accordingly, the Court’s dismissal Order shall state that “SeaWorld’s rights to pursue any
23
24
claims and remedies against Mr. Anderson or his counsel are preserved.” (See Dkt. No. 512-17,
25
Defendant’s Proposed Order at 2:6-7.)
26
27
28
1
The term “legal prejudice” has been construed to mean “prejudice to some legal interest,
some legal claims, some legal argument.” Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (quoting Westlands, 100 F.3d at
97).
2
1
Third, Defendant argues it should be declared the prevailing party on Mr. Anderson’s
2
claims, but it states it is not asking for an award of fees or costs as a condition of dismissal. Mr.
3
Anderson argues that this condition is unnecessary and premature. The Court declines to adopt
4
this condition. However, the Court will clearly state that Defendant reserves all rights to argue
5
that it is the prevailing party if it files a motion for costs or a motion for attorneys’ fees.
6
Finally, Defendant argues that it should be entitled to present evidence relating to Mr.
7
Anderson’s claims, including evidence adduced from Mr. Anderson’s sister, either by way of live
8
testimony, deposition designations, or the inclusion of findings of fact in Ms. Nelson’s and Ms.
9
Morizur’s trial on standing. In support of this condition, Defendant primarily relies on cases in
which courts granted a plaintiff’s motion for a voluntary dismissal on the condition that the
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
plaintiff respond to outstanding discovery. See, e.g., Roz v. Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc., No. CV
12
16-4418 SVW (JEMx), 2017 WL 6940512 (C.D. Cal. June 21, 2017) (granting motion to compel
13
deposition of named plaintiff and class representative where deposition noticed before plaintiff
14
indicated his desire to withdraw from suit); Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv-00453-JST, 2015
15
WL 9311888, at *3-*4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2015) (conditioning dismissal on plaintiff responding
16
to outstanding discovery that would be relevant to class certification but denying request to require
17
plaintiff to “respond[] to potential or hypothetical discovery”).
18
Assuming for the sake of argument that it would be within the Court’s discretion to impose
19
such a condition, the Court declines to do so in this case. In many of the cases on which
20
Defendant relies, the courts determined that – at the discovery phase – the plaintiff at issue was
21
likely to have “discoverable” information about issues that would be relevant to issues of class
22
certification. As the Opperman court noted, “[t]he inability to conduct sufficient discovery for a
23
defense can constitute legal prejudice.” 2015 WL 9311888, at *2 (citing Westlands Water Dist.,
24
100 F.3d at 97). Here, Defendant has the discovery it needs to defend against Ms. Morizur’s and
25
Ms. Nelson’s arguments on standing. The Court views this as an evidentiary issue, and contrary to
26
Defendant’s argument it concludes that Mr. Anderson’s testimony would not be relevant at trial.
27
Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant’s request to condition dismissal on the admission of such
28
3
1
testimony. Further, the Court will not hear that evidence at trial.2
CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the motion for voluntary dismissal on the
3
4
conditions set forth in this Order. Because the Court did not adopt Mr. Anderson’s proposal with
5
respect to Defendant’s second condition, he shall file a notice by no later than 4:00 p.m. on March
6
5, 2020, as to whether he accepts the Court’s conditions. See Lau v. Glendora Unified Sch. Dist.,
7
792 F.2d 929, 931 (9th Cir. 1986).
In addition to their arguments on dismissal, the parties have argued about whether the
8
9
Court should maintain or constrict the time limits it imposed at the pretrial conference. When the
Court set the time limits for trial, Mr. Anderson still was a party and he and his sister were
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
expected to testify. The Court also had not revisited its ruling excluding Ms. Fay as a witness.
12
The parties SHALL file a joint updated witness list with time estimates for each witness by 12:00
13
p.m. on March 6, 2020, so that it may determine whether it should adjust the previously set time
14
limitations.
Finally, Mr. Anderson’s decision not to pursue his claims and this motion came on the eve
15
16
of a bench trial, which placed additional burdens on the parties and on the Court. The parties
17
clearly have strong feelings about their respective positions on the merits of the standing issue as
18
well as the merits of this case. However, the parties can engage in zealous advocacy without
19
negatively characterizing of the opposing parties, their counsel, or their litigation strategies and
20
positions. Therefore, the Court ADMONISHES the parties that it expects them to conduct this
21
trial and all subsequent proceedings that may be necessary with civility and respect.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: March 4, 2020
______________________________________
JEFFREY S. WHITE
United States District Judge
24
25
26
27
28
2
The Court’s decision is premised on its view that the evidence is not relevant. It is not
based on Federal Rule of Evidence 403.
4
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?