Washington State Nurses Association v. Yakima HMA LLC

Filing 19

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal 10 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Senior Judge Lonny R. Suko. (SK, Case Administrator)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

7
WASHINGTON STATE NURSES
ASSOCIATION, a Washington labor
9 organization, on behalf of its members,
8
10

Plaintiffs,
11 vs.
12
YAKIMA HMA LLC, d/b/a YAKIMA
13 REGIONAL
MEDICAL
AND
14 CARDIAC CENTER, a Washington
Corporation,
15
16

No. 1:15-cv-03008-LRS
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL (ECF No. 10)

17

Defendant.
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal

18

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (ECF No. 10). The Court has reviewed the briefings

19
20

of counsel and is fully informed.

21
22

BACKGROUND
The Plaintiff in this matter is the Washington State Nurses Association

23
24

(WSNA). The WSNA originally filed its complaint in Yakima County Superior

25

Court in the State of Washington. ECF No. 6. WSNA alleges that the Defendant,

26
27

YAKIMA HMA, LLC (The Hospital), 1) failed to pay its nurses for time spent

28
ORDER - 1

1

performing work in violation RCW 49.46 and 49.52; 2) failed to provide paid meal

2

breaks in violation of RCW 49.12 and WAC 296-126-092(1)-(2); 3) failed to

3
4
5
6

maintain wage and hour records in violation of RCW 49.46.070; and 4) failed to
pay overtime due to its nurses in violation of RCW 49.46.130. Am. Complaint at
5-6.

7
8

The Hospital removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern

9

District of Washington by Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). ECF No.

10
11
12
13

1. The Hospital claimed that this Court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Id. The WSNA has now moved for voluntary dismissal of its claims under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). ECF No. 10.

14
DISCUSSION

15
16

Rule 41(a)(2) states that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s

17
18
19
20

request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. . . . Unless the
court states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.”
“A district court should grant a motion for voluntarily dismissal under Rule

21
22

41(a)(2) unless the defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice

23

as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Legal prejudice

24
25
26

means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.”
Id. at 976. “[T]he threat of future litigation” does not constitute plain legal

27
28
ORDER - 2

1

prejudice. Id. Finally, whether to grant a voluntary motion for dismissal under Rule

2

41(a)(2) is at the discretion of the district court. See id. at 975.

3
4
5
6

The WSNA argues that the defendant will suffer no plain legal prejudice as a
result of the dismissal. Therefore, there is no reason not to grant its motion for
voluntary dismissal. ECF No. 10 at 6. The Hospital, however, argues that the

7
8

WSNA is seeking voluntary dismissal for improper reasons. ECF No. 16 2-3.

9

Relying on Cent. Montana Rail v BNSF, 422 F. App’x 636 (9th Cir.

10
11
12
13

2011)(unpublished), The Hospital alleges that the WSNA is attempting to forum
shop which is an impermissible reason for dismissal. Id.
The Hospital further argues that it will, in fact, be prejudiced by the

14
15

dismissal. ECF No. 16 at 4. First, it claims that it will lose its ability to try the case

16

in a federal forum and be forced to try the case in front of a jury in state court.

17
18
19
20

However, “the need to defend against state law claims in state court is not plain
legal prejudice . . . .” Lenches, 263 F.3d at 976. “Also, plain legal prejudice does
not result merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to

21
22

defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by

23

that dismissal.” Id.

24
25
26
27

Second, The Hospital claims that it has expended considerable time and
expense in the federal litigation already. While the stage of the litigation has been a
consideration to some courts in deciding whether to grant a motion for dismissal,

28
ORDER - 3

1

we are still in a relatively early stage in this case. As a result, the “prejudice” that

2

the Defendant claims is not, in fact, the “plain legal prejudice” required by the rule.

3
CONCLUSION

4
5
6

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds “plain legal prejudice” to the
Defendant will not result from granting the Plaintiffs’ motion. The Defendant will

7
8

not be deprived of any legal claim, interest, or argument by the Court’s granting

9

the motion. Because a court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless

10
11
12
13

Defendant can show such plain legal prejudice, the Court grants the Plaintiff’s
motion for dismissal and does so without prejudice.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary

14
15
16

Dismissal (ECF No. 10) is GRANTED.
DATED April 15, 2015.

17
18

s/Lonny R. Suko
LONNY R. SUKO
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 4