U-Haul Co. of Nevada, Inc. et al v. Gregory J. Kamer, Ltd. et al

Filing 148

ORDER Granting 58 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Estate of Nathan Albright. Signed by Judge Kent J. Dawson on 1/29/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

11
12
U-HAUL CO. OF NEVADA, INC., et al.,
13
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:12-CV-00231-KJD-CWH

14
v.

ORDER

15
GREGORY J. KAMER, LTD., et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
18
Before the Court is the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (#58) filed by Plaintiffs U-Haul of
19
Nevada, Inc. and U-Haul International, Inc. (collectively “U-Haul”). Defendant Gregory J. Kamer
20
d/b/a/ Kamer Zucker Abbott (“KZA”) and Defendant Debra Wilcher (“Wilcher”) filed responses
21
(## 61, 62) and U-Haul filed replies (## 63, 64).
22
I. Introduction
23
U-Haul has filed this motion seeking to dismiss the Estate of Nathan Albright (“Albright
24
Estate”) with prejudice. U-Haul is the only party to this action that has asserted a claim against the
25
Albright Estate and has reached a settlement on its claims. Jennifer Corry, is Mr. Albright’s widow
26

1

and executrix of the Estate. According to U-Haul, Ms. Corry is in poor health and the settlement has

2

resolved any necessity for the Estate to remain in this action.

3

II. Discussion

4
5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2) provides that:

8

Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s
request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. If a
defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the plaintiff’s
motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over the defendant’s objection
only if the counterclaim can remain pending for independent adjudication. Unless
the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without
prejudice.

9

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

10

defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Hamilton v. Firestone

11

Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). “Plain legal prejudice, however, does

12

not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely

13

gains some tactical advantage.” Id. (citations omitted).

6
7

14

KZA opposes dismissal of the Albright Estate, claiming that it will suffer prejudice if the

15

Estate is dismissed. Specifically, KZA argues that if the Estate is dismissed, it will be unable to

16

conduct discovery, that it will face disproportionate share of liability, and that it may be forced to sue

17

the Albright Estate separately. Other than conclusory assertions of prejudice, KZA does not explain

18

how dismissal of the Albright Estate will adversely impact its ability to conduct discovery. Further,

19

the prospect of a subsequent lawsuit is not sufficient prejudice to preclude dismissal. Finally, KZA

20

will still be permitted to show evidence of Albright’s liability to reduce its proportion of any award

21

for negligence, even if the Estate is not a party to the action.

22

Wilcher’s non-opposition to dismissal of the Albright Estate is conditional. According to

23

Wilcher, dismissal of the Albright Estate will not prejudice her, so long as “Mr. Albright/his estate is

24

. . . included on the jury verdict form, with a place for the jury to assign him a portion of blame for

25

damages awarded to Plaintiffs.” The Court will determine appropriate jury instructions at the time of

26

trial. However, U-Haul’s claims against Wilcher are intentional torts, which are not affected by
2

1

Nevada’s comparative negligence statute. See NRS 41.141. Accordingly, Wilcher’s conditional non-

2

opposition does not preclude dismissal of the Estate.

3

Neither Defendants have asserted claims against the Albright Estate and neither has

4

demonstrated that plain legal prejudice would result from the Estate’s dismissal. Accordingly, the

5

Court determines that dismissal of the Albright Estate with prejudice is proper.

6

II. Conclusion

7

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (#58) is GRANTED.

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Estate of Nathan Albright is DISMISSED with prejudice.

9

DATED this 29th day of January 2013.

10
11
12
13

_____________________________
Kent J. Dawson
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3