Ewing v. Lopez
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
Defendants voluntarily dismissed their counterclaim against Plaintiff, rendering Plaintiff's pending motions to dismiss and strike moot. The Court dismissed the counterclaim without prejudice, dismissed Plaintiff's motions as moot, and vacated the scheduled hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' counterclaim dismissed without prejudice“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(c), that counterclaim shall be dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court The dismissal follows directly from the defendants' voluntary dismissal and the text of Rule 41(c), which mandates dismissal without prejudice when a counterclaim is voluntarily dismissed by the party asserting it. |
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Defendants' counterclaim and motion to strike material in Defendants' counterclaim dismissed as moot“Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim and motion to strike material in Defendants’ counterclaim shall be DISMISSED as moot.” | agree with court Because the counterclaim was voluntarily dismissed, the subject matter of Plaintiff's motions no longer exists, making the motions moot. |
Motion hearing vacated“The motion hearing set for August 22, 2025 shall be VACATED.” | agree with court The hearing was set to address the now-moot motions, so vacating it is a necessary procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order correctly applies Rule 41(c) to dismiss the counterclaim without prejudice and correctly identifies the plaintiff's motions as moot. However, the order cites Maciel Builders and CRST Van Expedited for the proposition that a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading, which is irrelevant to the disposition of a voluntary dismissal of a counterclaim. This citation appears to be a drafting error or boilerplate inclusion that does not support the ruling.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 25-cv-1547-DMS-SBC 11 ANTON A. EWING, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: VOLUNTARY v. DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS’ 13 COUNTERCLAIM XANDER LOPEZ, and individual; and 14 IMPERION PROPERTY 15 MOANAGEMENT, LLC., 16 Defendants.
17 The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ voluntary dismissal of their counterclaim 18 against Plaintiff Anton A. Ewing. (ECF No. 7). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 19 Procedure 41(c), that counterclaim shall be dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. 20 P. § 41(c)(1); Maciel Builders LLC v. US Framing Int’l LLC, No. 19-cv-03660-BLF, 2020 21 WL 4747910, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) (“[A] motion to dismiss is not a responsive 22 pleading.”) (citing CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., 479 F.3d 1099, 23 1104 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007)). Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendants’ counterclaim and 24 motion to strike material in Defendants’ counterclaim shall be DISMISSED as moot. 25 (ECF No. 6). The motion hearing set for August 22, 2025 shall be VACATED. 26 27 28 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 ||Dated: August 6, 2025 3 Yn « 44) 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28