Gastelum v. Nordstrom, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal after the defendant had already answered, which did not automatically terminate the case under Rule 41(a)(1). The court construed the filing as a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), granted it based on a settlement, and dismissed the action with prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action with prejudice“For good cause and finding no prejudice to Defendant, the Court GRANTS the request and DISMISSES this action with prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that Rule 41(a)(1) did not apply because an answer had been served. It properly construed the filing as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion. The court found good cause (settlement) and no prejudice to the defendant, which satisfies the requirements for discretionary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the procedural rules. It identifies the inapplicability of Rule 41(a)(1) due to the prior answer, properly recharacterizes the filing as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion, and cites the correct standard of review (sound discretion). The factual basis for the decision (settlement, no prejudice) is stated, making the reasoning sound.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 24-cv-1018-RSH-DDL 12 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 NORDSTROM, INC., 15 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum filed a Notice of Voluntary 20 Dismissal of the instant case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. ECF 21 No. 26. Because Defendant has filed an answer, Plaintiff’s filing of a notice of dismissal 22 does not operate to terminate the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(A)(i) (“[P]laintiff may 23 dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing 24 party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”). 25 Instead, the Court construes the Plaintiff’s notice as a motion to voluntarily dismiss 26 an action “upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems 27 1 || proper” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). “A motion for voluntary 2 || dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the district court's sound discretion[.|” Segal 3 Segel, No. 20-CV-1382-BAS-JLB, 2022 WL 848324, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022) 4 || (quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (1996)). 5 The docket reflects that the Parties have reached a settlement, and that Plaintiff is 6 seeking dismissal of the action with prejudice pursuant to that settlement. For good cause 7 || and finding no prejudice to Defendant, the Court GRANTS the request and DISMISSES 8 |/this action with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 3, 2025 JBhut ¢ [owe 12 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28