Whittle v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved to dismiss the plaintiff's ERISA disability benefits action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court granted the motion, finding that the defendant did not demonstrate any legal prejudice that would warrant denying the dismissal.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice granted“Because Defendant does not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 19.)” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit precedent cited establishes that dismissal should be granted unless the defendant shows 'plain legal prejudice.' The order notes that the defendant did not identify any such prejudice, and the court found none apparent. Therefore, granting the dismissal follows directly from the law and the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate binding Ninth Circuit authority. It correctly identifies the standard of review (abuse of discretion) and the specific test for denial (plain legal prejudice). The court explicitly states that the defendant failed to identify any legal prejudice, which is the required showing to deny a Rule 41(a)(2) motion. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a joint motion where no opposition or prejudice is alleged.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAWN WHITTLE, Case No. 21-cv-0386-BAS-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 19)
14 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action with prejudice 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 19.) 19 Plaintiff Dawn Whittle brought this action against Defendant Unum Life Insurance 20 Company of America on March 4, 2021 seeking disability benefits under the Employee 21 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et. seq. (Compl., 22 ECF No. 1.) Defendant answered the Complaint on April 30, 2021, denying the legal 23 claims against it. (ECF No. 6.) On December 8, 2021, the parties jointly moved to dismiss 24 this action in its entirety with prejudice. (Mot. 1.) 25 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 26 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 28 1 |funder Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]Jourt[.]” 2 || Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 3 Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 4 || Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 5 ||(1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 6 || a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 7 || 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal 8 |/interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 9 || States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal preyudice”’ 10 from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 11 litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 12 || plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 13 || Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 14 Because Defendant does not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 15 ||prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 16 ||GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 19.) The clerk of 17 court shall close this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 / yy 20 || DATED: December 8, 2021 ( yi uA (Liphan 6 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28