P.I.C. International, Inc. v. Gooper Hermetic, LTD.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Roger T. Benitez (author)
Analysis
The court considered Plaintiff's motion to voluntarily dismiss the action against Defendant Goldstein without prejudice and its motion to substitute counsel. The court granted both motions, finding that the defendant had not opposed the dismissal and that good cause existed due to parallel state court litigation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice is granted.“Reviewing the record and finding good cause has been shown, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires a showing of good cause. The court noted that the defendant did not oppose the motion and that parallel state court litigation mitigated any potential prejudice. This aligns with Ninth Circuit precedent that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate unless the defendant shows legal prejudice. |
Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Counsel is granted.“Plaintiff's Motion to Substitute Counsel is likewise granted.” | agree with court The order grants the motion to substitute counsel without detailed reasoning, but such motions are typically granted upon a showing of good cause or consent, which is implied by the lack of opposition and the routine nature of the request in this context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(2)), cites the controlling Ninth Circuit standard for voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Smith v. Lenches), and applies the facts (lack of opposition, parallel state litigation) to conclude that good cause exists and no legal prejudice is shown. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine, unopposed motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 P.I.C. INTERNATIONAL, INC., d.b.a. Case No.: 3:19-cv-0734-BEN-DEB H2Odyssey, a California corporation, 10 ORDER GRANTING: Plaintiff, 11 v. (1) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 12 DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE; GOOPER HERMETIC, LTD., an Israeli 13 and limited company;
14 STEVE CHARLES GOLDSTEIN, et al., (2) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 15 Defendants. SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL 16 [ECF Nos. 71, 73] 17 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal 18 Without Prejudice and Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Counsel. 19 Plaintiff has previously settled its claims against Defendant Gooper Hermetic, Ltd. 20 On July 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed this Motion for Voluntary Dismissal as to the remaining 21 Defendant, Steve Charles Goldstein. A hearing was scheduled on the motion for August 22 17, 2020. Defendant Goldstein has not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and the 23 time for submission of an opposition has now passed. Civ. L. R. 7.1(e)(2). The Court 24 determines this matter is appropriate for adjudication without oral argument and submits 25 the motion. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d)(1). 26 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed 27 at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms the court considers proper.” A 28 1 || dismissal without prejudice is granted unless the defendant shows it will suffer legal 2 || prejudice as aresult. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). 3 Plaintiff argues dismissal without prejudice would conserve judicial resources as 4 claims against Defendant Goldstein are also the subject of a state court action filed by 5 Defendant Goldstein. Plaintiff further argues the ongoing state court case eliminates any 6 || threat of prejudice to Defendant Goldstein that dismissal of this case might cause. The 7 Court agrees. Defendant Goldstein chose the state court as his forum, and his claims are 8 || being litigated there. Moreover, Defendant Goldstein has not filed any opposition to 9 || Plaintiff's assertions or argued he would suffer any plain legal prejudice as a result of 10 ||dismissal. See Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 94 (9th Cir. 1996) 11 Civ. L. R. 7.1H@G)(c). 12 Reviewing the record and finding good cause has been shown, the Court grants 13 || Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to 14 || Substitute Counsel is likewise granted. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 || Date: August 13, 2020 18 HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28