Gustine v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss three defendants without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. The court construed the motion as seeking dismissal without prejudice, citing the statement that the dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits, and ordered the parties to file an amended motion by July 28, 2021, if they intended dismissal with prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
The court construed the joint motion to dismiss Defendants Honesto Patawaran, Traci Levin, and Jose Padilla as a motion for dismissal without prejudice.“The Court construes this to mean the dismissal is to be without prejudice.” | agree with court The court's construction is logically consistent with the parties' explicit statement that the dismissal 'does not constitute an adjudication on the merits.' In federal practice, a dismissal without prejudice is generally not considered an adjudication on the merits, whereas a dismissal with prejudice is. Therefore, the court's interpretation follows from the text of the motion and standard legal definitions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It addresses the ambiguity in the joint motion by applying standard legal definitions to the parties' own language. The court correctly identifies that the phrase 'not an adjudication on the merits' aligns with a dismissal without prejudice. The court also provides a clear mechanism for the parties to correct the record if their intent was different, ensuring due process and clarity.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT EDWARD GUSTINE, Case No.: 19cv903-LAB (NLS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendants Honesto Patawaran, Traci 18 Levin, and Jose Padilla. The joint motion did not say whether the dismissal was to 19 be with or without prejudice, but it did specify that the “dismissal does not constitute 20 an adjudication on the merits.” The Court construes this to mean the dismissal is 21 to be without prejudice. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 22 497, 505 (2001) (treating “adjudication upon the merits” as the opposite of 23 “dismissal without prejudice”); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 24 2002) (noting that adjudication on the merits and dismissal with prejudice are used 25 interchangeably). If this was not the parties’ intention, they should file an amended 26 joint motion no later than July 28, 2021, asking that these Defendants be 27 dismissed with prejudice. 28 / / / 1 If the parties intend the dismissal to be without prejudice, however, they need 2 ||not do anything, and the Court will rule on the joint motion as filed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: July 24, 2021 9 [; Ue / 4 (Bug 6 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28