Mission Gathering Christian Church v. City of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jeffrey T. Miller (author)
Analysis
The plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, which the court interpreted as a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The court granted the request and dismissed the case with prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal with prejudice“The request is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that because the defendant had likely already served an answer or motion for summary judgment (implied by the court's refusal to apply Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)), the plaintiff could not use the automatic notice of dismissal mechanism. Instead, the court treated the filing as a motion under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires court approval. Since the plaintiff requested dismissal with prejudice and the court granted it, the decision follows the procedural requirements for voluntary dismissal after the initial window has closed. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the distinction between Rule 41(a)(1) and Rule 41(a)(2) based on the timing of the defendant's response, citing appropriate Ninth Circuit authority. The court's decision to interpret the notice as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion and grant it aligns with standard federal practice when the automatic dismissal window has passed.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MISSION GATHERING CHRISTIAN Case No.: 19cv1967 JM (KSC) CHURCH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER ON NOTICE OF v. VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH 14 PREJUDICE CITY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 19 Plaintiff Mission Gathering Christian Church (“Plaintiff”) requests that the court 20 dismiss the entirety of its Complaint with prejudice. (Doc. No. 21.) Plaintiff styles the 21 request as one brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), under which 22 a plaintiff may file a notice of dismissal with the court before the defendant serves an 23 answer or motion for summary judgment, whichever comes first. See Wilson v. City of San 24 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“Once the defendant serves an answer or a motion 25 for summary judgment . . . . the plaintiff may no longer voluntarily dismiss under Rule 26 41(a)(1), but must file a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).”). The court 27 will nonetheless interpret the request to dismiss as one brought under Rule 41(a)(2). The 28 1 |}request is GRANTED. The case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court 2 ||is directed close the case. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || DATED: April 1, 2021 hte “i: iol, _ 5 J | T. ILLER ited 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