Ward et al v. The County of Mendocino et al

Filing 149

Order by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granting 142 MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS KINDRED AND GOODMAN.(pjhlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MARGARET WARD, et al.,

v.

9
10

THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-00911-PJH

Plaintiffs,

8

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS
KINDRED AND GOODMAN AND
VACATING HEARING
Re: Dkt. No. 142

12
13

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss defendants Kindred

14
15

Healthcare Operating, Inc. (“Kindred”) and Kathy Louise Goodman (together the “Kindred

16

Defendants”) with prejudice. Dkt. 142. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for

17

decision without oral argument.1 Accordingly, the hearing set for April 17, 2019 is

18

VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments

19

and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as

20

follows.
On October 2, 2018, the parties attended a mandatory settlement conference with

21
22

Judge Beeler. See Dkt. 116. At that settlement conference, plaintiffs reached a

23

settlement agreement with the Kindred Defendants, and on February 22, 2019, this court

24

granted Kindred’s motion to determine that settlement was made in good faith under

25
26
27
28

1

Although fully briefed, none of the parties provided chambers with a paper copy of the
documents it electronically filed, in violation of Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and this court’s
standing orders. The parties are reminded that “Chambers copies of each electronicallyfiled document must . . . be delivered to the Clerk's Office by noon the day following its
filing.” Judge Hamilton’s Civil Pretrial Instructions ¶ A.6.

1

California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. Dkt. 139. Plaintiffs now move the court to

2

dismiss the Kindred Defendants from this action with prejudice.

3

Kindred supports the motion. Dkt. 142-1 ¶ 2. Each additional defendant (other

4

than Goodman, whom the parties are unable to reach) has filed a statement of non-

5

opposition to the motion. Dkts. 143, 147.

6

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed
at the plaintiff's request by court order “on terms that the court considers proper. . . .

8

Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without

9

prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary

10

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

12

Given that plaintiffs have settled their claims against the Kindred Defendants, the

13

court has determined that settlement was made in good faith under California law, and no

14

defendant has opposed this motion or attempted to show that it will suffer any legal

15

prejudice from the proposed dismissals, the court finds that plaintiffs’ request to dismiss

16

the Kindred Defendants is proper.

17
18
19
20

Accordingly, Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. and Kathy Louise Goodman are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The hearing set for April 17, 2019 is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 3, 2019

21
22

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2