American GNC Corporation v. Honeywell International Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved to dismiss the patent infringement action and counterclaims pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) following a settlement. The court granted the motion, dismissing the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and the defendant's counterclaims without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).“the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Accordingly, it dismisses with prejudice Plaintiff's claims of patent infringement in its Amended Complaint and dismisses without prejudice Defendant’s counterclaims for declaratory judgments of invalidity respecting certain patents-in-suit prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), which requires a showing of 'plain legal prejudice' to deny the motion. The order recites that neither party identified such prejudice and the court found none apparent. The distinction between dismissing the plaintiff's claims with prejudice and the defendant's counterclaims without prejudice is consistent with the parties' request and the nature of the claims (affirmative vs. defensive/declaratory). |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for Rule 41(a)(2) motions, citing binding Ninth Circuit precedent. It applies the 'plain legal prejudice' test and finds no such prejudice exists based on the parties' joint motion and the court's own review. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a joint motion to dismiss based on settlement.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Case No. 20-cv-2479-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 61) 14 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC., 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). (Mot., ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff American GNC 19 Corporation brought this patent-infringement action against Defendant Honeywell 20 International Inc. on December 21, 2020. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed its operative 21 Amended Complaint on May 24, 2021. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 29.) Defendant filed its 22 Answer on June 28, 2021, in which it counter-claimed for declaratory judgments of patent 23 invalidity respecting the patents-in-suit. (Answer, ECF No. 33.) 24 On January 31, 2022, after an extended stay in the above-captioned action, the 25 parties jointly moved to dismiss after reaching a settlement agreement. (See Joint Mot., 26 ECF No. 61.) By their Joint Motion, the parties seek dismissal of this matter in its entirety 27 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Specifically, they seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s patent 28 | |}infringement claims against Defendant with prejudice, and dismissal of Defendant’s 2 counterclaims for declaratory judgment without prejudice. 3 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the □□□□□□□□□□□ 4 ||request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 ||41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 6 |/under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 7 || Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 8 ||alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 9 || Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 10 ||(1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 11 defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 12 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal 13 |/interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 14 || States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” 15 ||from: (1) “[uJncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 16 || litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 17 ||plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 18 || Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 19 Because neither Plaintiff nor Defendant identifies any legal prejudice that might 20 ||result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, nor does the Court find any legal 21 || prejudice apparent, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Accordingly, it dismisses with 22 || prejudice Plaintiff's claims of patent infringement in its Amended Complaint and dismisses 23 || without prejudice Defendant’s counterclaims for declaratory judgments of invalidity 24 || respecting certain patents-in-suit prejudice. (ECF No. 61.) The clerk of court shall close 25 case. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 || DATED: February 2, 2022 ( itl A (pha □ 28 United States District Judge