Novalk, LLC v. City of Imperial, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Novalk, LLC moved to voluntarily dismiss its action against the City of Imperial and others without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court granted the motion, vacated the defendants' pending motion to dismiss as moot, and directed the Clerk to close the action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 12)“In sum, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff’s action against Defendants is dismissed without prejudice under 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires a showing of 'legal prejudice' by the defendant to deny the motion. The order notes that the dismissal occurs before an answer or summary judgment motion is filed, and no specific legal prejudice was identified or argued by the defendants in the order's recitation. The decision to retain jurisdiction over the pending sanctions motion is supported by the cited authority regarding collateral issues. |
Vacating Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) as Moot“Further, Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) is therefore VACATED AS MOOT.” | agree with court Once the underlying action is voluntarily dismissed, any pending motion to dismiss that action becomes moot because there is no longer a live case to dismiss. This is a standard procedural consequence of granting a voluntary dismissal. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) and applies it to the facts that no answer or summary judgment motion had been filed. It appropriately cites Ninth Circuit precedent defining 'legal prejudice' and correctly notes that the court retains jurisdiction over the pending sanctions motion, citing recent Ninth Circuit authority (Lake v. Gates) and Supreme Court precedent (Cooter & Gell). The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 NOVALK, LLC, Case No. 25-cv-02307-BAS-LR 15 Plaintiff, ORDER: 16 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 17 CITY OF IMPERIAL, et. al, MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 12); 18 Defendants. AND 19 (2) VACATING DEFENDANT’S 20 MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT 21 (ECF No. 9) 22 23 24 Before the court is a motion to dismiss the action without prejudice filed by Plaintiff 25 Novalk, LLC (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). 26 (ECF No. 12.) 27 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 28 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 2 under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 3 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). “A district 4 court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show 5 it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 6 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal interest, some 7 legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 8 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” from: (1) 9 “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future litigation”; 10 (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a plaintiff 11 gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing Hamilton, 12 679 F.2d at 145). 13 Here, Plaintiff has moved to voluntarily dismiss the case before Defendants have 14 filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Cf Rule 41(a)(1)(i) (“the plaintiff may 15 dismiss an action without a court order by filing. . . a notice of dismissal before the 16 opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment”). As such, the 17 Court finds that Defendants will also not suffer “legal prejudice” from the dismissal as 18 defined by 41(a)(2). 19 Importantly, the even when granting a voluntary dismissal and closing the case, the 20 Court retains the discretion to rule on Defendants’ motion for sanctions (ECF No. 11). 21 “Although the substantive claim in this matter was dismissed for lack of standing, federal 22 courts maintain jurisdiction over ‘collateral issues after an action is no longer pending,’ 23 including costs, attorneys' fees, or sanctions, because such motions ‘are independent 24 proceeding[s] supplemental to the original proceeding and not a request for a modification 25 of the original decree.’” Lake v. Gates, 130 F.4th 1054, 1058 (9th Cir. 2025) (citing Cooter 26 & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395) 27 In sum, good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss 28 (ECF No. 12). Plaintiff’s action against Defendants is dismissed without prejudice under 1 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, Defendants’ motion to 2 ||dismiss (ECF No. 9) is therefore VACATED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is 3 || DIRECTED TO CLOSE the action. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 ~ 6 || DATED: December 10, 2025 (yatta Bahar te 7 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _2.