Cynthia-Yvette Brown v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff filed a motion to rescind a settlement release, which the Court construed as a motion for summary adjudication of a defense. The Court denied the motion without prejudice as premature because the Defendant had not yet answered or engaged in discovery.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Rescind and Void Settlement Release (construed as motion for summary adjudication) without prejudice.“The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 44).” | agree with court The Court correctly applied the principle that summary judgment motions are often premature before the nonmovant has filed a responsive pleading or discovery has occurred, citing Rule 56 advisory committee notes and supporting case law. Denying without prejudice allows the motion to be refiled when procedurally appropriate. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the motion as premature under Rule 56 principles because the defendant has not answered and no discovery has occurred. The citation to the Advisory Committee Note and supporting district court cases provides adequate authority for the procedural ruling. The denial without prejudice is the appropriate remedy to preserve the plaintiff's right to refile when the case is more developed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CYNTHIA-YVETTE BROWN, Case No.: 25-CV-2947 TWR (BLM)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RESCIND AND VOID 14 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., SETTLEMENT RELEASE 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 44) 16 17 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Cynthia-Yvette Brown’s Motion to Rescind 18 and Void Settlement Release (“Mot.,” ECF No. 44), which the Court liberally construes as 19 a motion for summary adjudication of one of Defendant Dollar Tree Store, Inc.’s 20 anticipated defenses, namely, that Plaintiff’s present lawsuit is barred by her prior 21 settlement release. “Although [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56] allows a motion for 22 summary judgment to be filed at the commencement of an action, in many cases the motion 23 will be premature until the nonmovant has had time to file a responsive pleading or other 24 pretrial proceedings have been had.” Anthony v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. 25-CV-0310- 25 BAS-MMP, 2025 WL 1134611, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 56(b) advisory committee’s note to 2010 amendment). “Courts have denied pre-answer 27 and pre-discovery motions for summary judgment as premature despite technical 28 compliance with the timing provisions of Rule 56.” Id. (first citing Williams v. Yuan Chen, 1 || No. S-10-1292-CKD-P, 2011 WL 4354533, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011); then citing 2 || Bradford v. Ogbuehi, No. 1:17-CV-01128-SAB (PC), 2020 WL 9886194, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 3 || Feb. 20, 2020)). 4 While Plaintiff's Motion “is technically compliant with the timing requirements of 5 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, the Court finds it is premature because Defendant] 6 || ha[s] not yet filed an Answer to the Complaint” or engaged in any discovery. See id. The 7 || Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 44). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ||Dated: April 3, 2026 —— (2 10 [aD (re 11 Honorable Todd W. Robinson D United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28