Young v. Target Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) following the execution of a negotiated settlement agreement. The court granted the motion, finding no legal prejudice to the defendant, and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice.“Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 21.)” | 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. Since the motion was joint and no prejudice was identified, granting the dismissal was the proper outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule and the standard for voluntary dismissal. It cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that dismissal is the default unless legal prejudice is shown. The court's finding that no legal prejudice was identified supports the grant of the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL YOUNG, Case No. 21-cv-1280-BAS-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 21) 14 TARGET CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2) in light of their execution of a negotiated 19 settlement agreement resolving this matter in its entirety. (Mot., ECF No. 21.) 20 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 21 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 23 under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 24 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 25 alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 26 Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 27 (1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 28 a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. 1 || Lunches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to 2 ||some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. 3 || v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal 4 ||prejudice” from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat 5 || of future litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; 6 (3) a plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 7 || (citing Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 8 Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 9 prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 10 || GRANTS the Joint Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 21.) The clerk 11 court shall close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 / 14 || DATED: December 14, 2021 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28