Stella v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association et al

Filing 42

ORDER Granting 27 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice.. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 4/14/16. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Case No.: 15cv2673-MMA (BLM)

PAUL STELLA,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, et al.,

[Doc. No. 27]

Defendants.
Plaintiff Paul Stella has filed a motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice

18

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Doc. No. 27. Defendants JP

19

Morgan Chase Bank, National Association (“Chase”), Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

20

(“Select Portfolio”) and U.S. Bank National Association (“U.S. Bank”) oppose voluntary

21

dismissal on grounds of judicial economy. Doc. Nos. 33, 34. Plaintiff replies that the

22

potential inconvenience of another lawsuit is not sufficient legal prejudice to warrant

23

denial of his motion. Doc. No. 35. The Court determined the matter suitable for decision

24

on the papers and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the

25

reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. No. 27).

26
27
28

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendants alleging several causes of action arising from
foreclosure-related events concerning Plaintiff’s home. On November 30, 2015,
-1-

15cv2673-MMA (BLM)

1

Defendants Select Portfolio and U.S. Bank removed the case to federal court. Doc. No.

2

1. Defendant Chase filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on December 7,

3

2015. Doc. No. 6. Defendants Select Portfolio and U.S. Bank answered. Doc. No. 8.

4

On December 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Doc. No. 11. On January 27,

5

2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for voluntary dismissal. Doc. No. 27. On

6

February 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint. Doc. No.

7

36. All of Plaintiff’s motions remain pending before the Court.

8

DISCUSSION

9

Unless all parties stipulate to dismissal, after service of an answer a plaintiff may

10

only voluntarily dismiss an action with the court’s approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).

11

“In ruling on a motion for voluntary dismissal, the District Court must consider whether

12

the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Plain

13

legal prejudice, however, does not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a

14

second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some tactical advantage.” Hamilton v.

15

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted); see

16

also Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he

17

threat of future litigation which causes uncertainty is insufficient to establish plain legal

18

prejudice.”).

19

Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal because they believe

20

Plaintiff seeks to dismiss “for the express purpose of then commencing a second action

21

against the same defendants, but without a RICO claim and with the addition of a new

22

defendant, so that he may purportedly sidestep this Court’s jurisdiction.” Doc. No. 33.

23

Defendants contend that the addition of the new, non-diverse defendant would

24

nevertheless not defeat diversity jurisdiction, and note that Chase’s motion to dismiss has

25

already been taken under submission by the Court. Although the Court notes that

26

Plaintiff’s pending motion to remand is without merit for reasons it need not address

27

here, Defendants have identified no legal prejudice that will result from granting

28

Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. See Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 97
-2-

15cv2673-MMA (BLM)

1

(“[L]egal prejudice is just that—prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some

2

legal argument. Uncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved is not legal

3

prejudice.”). The Court declines to speculate as to whether or not Plaintiff will ultimately

4

file another lawsuit in state court, and, if so, whether removal of that case to federal court

5

will be appropriate. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and

6

DISMISSES this matter without prejudice, Doc. No. 27.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10
11
12

Dated: April 14, 2016
_____________________________
Hon. Michael M. Anello
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-

15cv2673-MMA (BLM)