Jones v. Bannister et al

Filing 95

ORDER granting ECF No. 80 Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendants Jonathan Perry and Candis Brockway. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

Case No. 3-16-cv-00399-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10

ORDER

v.
11
BRUCE BANNISTER, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal

15

of Two Defendants per Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (“Motion”). (ECF No. 80.) Defendants filed

16

a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. (ECF No. 87.) For the following reasons,

17

the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion.

18

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff, pursuant to an order of

19

the court, and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems proper, to dismiss an

20

action without prejudice at any time.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d

21

94, 96 (9th Cir.1996) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla

22

Int’l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1989)). “The purpose of the rule is to permit a plaintiff

23

to dismiss an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced or

24

unfairly affected by dismissal.” Stevedoring Servs., 889 F.2d at 921 (citations omitted). “A

25

district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a

26

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v.

27

Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). “‘[L]egal prejudice’ means ‘prejudice to some

28

///

1

legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.’” Id. at 976 (quoting Westlands, 100

2

F.3d at 97).

3

Plaintiff moves to dismiss Defendants Jonathan Perry and Candis Brockway from

4

the first and third claims in his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) with prejudice under

5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 1 (ECF No. 80 at 1.) Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion.

6

(ECF No. 87 at 1.)

7

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF No. 80) is granted.

8

DATED THIS 18th day of May 2018.

9
10
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1Plaintiff

filed his SAC on March 13, 2018 (ECF No. 64 at 1), and the Court has not

yet screened it.
2