Bagirov v. Aargon Collection Agency, Inc. et al

Filing 37

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 29 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Collection Services of Nevada. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 12/6/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

VICTORIA BAGIROV,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-CV-984 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

v.
AARGON COLLECTION AGENCY, INC.,
et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is plaintiff Victoria Bagirov’s motion to dismiss defendant

14

Collection Service of Nevada (“CSN”). (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff has filed a notice of non-

15

opposition, asserting that defendant has failed to respond to the motion within the applicable

16

deadline. (ECF No. 36).

17

On July 27, 2016, CSN filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 22). Therefore,

18

plaintiff must seek a court order granting her request to dismiss her action against that party. See

19

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (“Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the

20
21
22
23

plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.”). “A district court
should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show
that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th
Cir. 2001) (footnote omitted) (citing Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir.
1987)).

24

Here, CSN has failed to respond to plaintiff’s motion to dismiss and therefore has

25

effectively consented to the granting of that motion. See Local Rule 7-2(d). The instant matter is

26

one where plaintiff seeks to dismiss her own claim against a defendant—not the dismissal of an

27

action effectively as a sanction for a failure to obey the local rules. (See ECF No. 29). Therefore,

28

a consideration of the factors in Ghazali v. Moran, is unnecessary. Compare 46 F.3d 52, 53–54

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

(9th Cir. 1995), with Smith, 263 F.3d at 975. Thus, this court is satisfied that defendant has not

2

indicated any impending legal prejudice that would result from the granting of this motion.

3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiff’s motion to
dismiss her action against this defendant (ECF No. 29) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.
DATED December 6, 2016.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-