Mauzy v. Mauzy
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendant Jennifer Mauzy moved to modify the court's previous dismissal of the case from without prejudice to with prejudice. The court withdrew its prior order granting that modification and denied the motion, reaffirming that the case is dismissed without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Withdrawal of the July 29, 2025 order that had dismissed Plaintiff's federal claims with prejudice“Now, the Court, on its own motion, hereby withdraws that order.” | agree with court The court cites Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga Ma Corp. for the proposition that a district court has discretion to correct a judgment for mistake or inadvertence. The court's subsequent reasoning indicates that the prior order was erroneous because it failed to account for the plaintiff's valid voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which is without prejudice by default. Therefore, the withdrawal is a correct exercise of discretion to correct a legal error. |
Denial of Defendant's motion to modify the dismissal order“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to modify Court’s dismissal order.” | agree with court The court applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), noting that a plaintiff may unilaterally voluntarily dismiss before an answer or motion for summary judgment is filed. The court finds that the plaintiff filed such a notice before the defendant answered or moved for summary judgment. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), such a dismissal is without prejudice unless the notice states otherwise. Since the plaintiff's notice did not state otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. The defendant's motion to convert this to a with-prejudice dismissal is therefore denied. |
Case dismissed without prejudice“The case is dismissed without prejudice.” | agree with court This is the operative effect of the denial of the motion to modify and the withdrawal of the prior with-prejudice order. It aligns with the application of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural posture: the plaintiff filed a valid voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the defendant answered or moved for summary judgment. It correctly applies Rule 41(a)(1)(B) to determine that the dismissal is without prejudice. It appropriately uses the court's inherent power to correct mistakes (citing Durga Ma) to withdraw its prior erroneous order that had dismissed the federal claims with prejudice. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MATT MAUZY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00344-CAB-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. MODIFY DISMISSAL 14 JENNIFER MAUZY, and DOES 1–10, [Doc. No. 11] 15 Defendants. 16 17 On July 21, 2025, Defendant Jennifer Mauzy filed a motion seeking the Court to 18 modify its previous dismissal of Plaintiff’s case from without prejudice to with prejudice. 19 [Doc. No. 11.] The Court initially dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend 20 because it may have been saved by amendment. [Doc. No. 7]; see Eminence Cap., LLC v. 21 Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Dismissal with prejudice and without 22 leave to amend is not appropriate unless it is clear . . . that the complaint could not be saved 23 by amendment.”). After Plaintiff did not amend by the deadline, Defendant filed a motion 24 to dismiss for failure to prosecute and Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without 25 prejudice. [Doc. Nos. 8, 9.] The Court subsequently dismissed the case without prejudice 26 on July 15, 2025. [Doc. No. 10.] 27 On July 29, 2025, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion to modify the 28 dismissal and dismissed Plaintiff’s federal claims with prejudice. [Doc. No. 12.] Now, the 1 || Court, on its own motion, hereby withdraws that order. See Fid. Fed. Bank, FSB v. Durga 2 || Ma Corp., 387 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The district court has discretion to correct 3 ||a judgment for mistake or inadvertence, either on the part of counsel or the court itself.”’). 4 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)() “allows a plaintiff to unilaterally voluntarily 5 || dismiss, so long as it does so before an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Aetna 6 v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 599 F. Supp. 3d 913, 918 (N.D. Cal. 2022). That dismissal is 7 || without prejudice unless the notice of voluntary dismissal states otherwise. See id.; Fed. 8 ||R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice 9 || pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(@) before Defendant filed an answer or a motion for summary 10 ||/judgment. [Doc. No. 9.] Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to modify 11 Court’s dismissal order. The case is dismissed without prejudice. 12 Itis SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: August 12, 2025 (GB 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28