Martinez et al v. PRLAP, INC et al

Filing 45

ORDER THAT Plaintiff Daniel G. Martinezs Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice 9 is GRANTED. Gloria Juarez, Paul Kim, Amy Lemus, MTC FINANCIAL, Malcolm Cisneros Law Group, Anthony Tran, Thomas Zsidro, Juan Carillo and Tina M Courtney terminated. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/20/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 DANIEL G. MARTINEZ, et. al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00345-MMD-RJJ Plaintiffs, 11 ORDER v. 12 13 [Plf.’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice – dkt. no. 9] PRLAP, Inc., et al., Defendants. 14 15 Before this Court is Plaintiff Daniel G. Martinez’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss 16 17 Without Prejudice. (Dkt. no. 9.) 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiffs Daniel G. Martinez, Tina M. Courtney, and Thomas Zsidro filed this 20 action in state court on October 14, 2011, against PRLAP, Inc. (“PRLAP”), the original 21 trustee of the deed of trust, for breach of fiduciary duties arising out of the alleged filing 22 of fraudulent documents with the county recorder relating to a property that had been the 23 subject of foreclosure proceedings. The property was sold at a foreclosure sale on 24 October 24, 2011. On January 31, 2012, Clark County District Judge Kenneth Corey 25 granted PRLAP’s Motion to Dismiss as to Plaintiffs Courtney and Zsidro. 26 subsequently filed a First Amended Complaint on February 10, 2012, alleging claims 27 against PRLAP, Inc., MTC Financial Inc. d/b/a Trustee Corps (“Trustee Corps”) (the 28 substituted trustee), and individual defendants Paul Kim, Juan Carrillo, Gloria Juarez, Martinez 1 Amy Lemus, Anthony Tran, Susan Dana, and Diane Derr. Trustee Corps removed this 2 action on March 1, 2012. On July 11, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff Martinez’s Motion 3 to Remand. (See dkt. no. 41.) 4 II. DISCUSSION 5 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's 6 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” The purpose of 7 Rule 41(a)(2) “is to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action . . . so long as the defendant will 8 not be prejudiced or unfairly affected by dismissal.” Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla 9 Intern. B. V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal quotations omitted). “[T]he 10 decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound 11 discretion of the District Court.” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 12 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). 13 Martinez seeks to dismiss his suit against Trustee Corps, Paul Kim, Juan Carillo, 14 Gloria Juarez, Amy Lemus, and Anthony Tran. The Court finds that Martinez’s request 15 will not unfairly prejudice these defendants. Martinez sought dismissal only days after 16 these Defendants filed their Answer to the Complaint and about two weeks after Trustee 17 Corps filed its petition for removal. Further, the Court will not award these defendants 18 attorneys’ fees or costs. 19 The Court also notes that PRLAP’s Motion to Dismiss in state court was granted 20 as to Plaintiffs Courtney and Zsidro on January 31, 2012. (See Dkt. no. 44-D.) Given 21 that Martinez, as a pro se litigant, was prohibited from pursuing claims on behalf of 22 Courtney and Zsidro in his First Amended Complaint, see Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 23 546 F.3d 661, 664-65 (9th Cir. 2008), the only remaining litigants in this case are Plaintiff 24 Martinez and Defendants PRLAP, Dana, and Derr. 25 III. CONCLUSION Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff Daniel G. Martinez’s 26 27 Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice (dkt. no. 9) is GRANTED. 28 /// 2 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Office of the Clerk shall terminate Plaintiffs 2 Thomas Zsidro and Tina M. Courtney pursuant to PRLAP’s Motion to Dismiss (see dkt. 3 no. 44-D). 4 ENTERED THIS 20th day of July 2012. 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 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?