Pastor v. Empire Today, LLC.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 following a settlement. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
| What the court decided | Standard it applied | The model |
|---|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for Dismissal of the Action with prejudice“For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Dismiss the Action with prejudice. [Dkt. 20].” | abuse of discretion | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). It cited the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the discretion of the district court and the requirement to consider legal prejudice. The court found no legal prejudice to the defendant and noted that the settlement conditions were met, making the dismissal with prejudice appropriate and consistent with the parties' agreement. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate binding authority for the standard of review. It explicitly addresses the requirement to check for legal prejudice and confirms the settlement was performed, providing a complete basis for the dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDAN PASTOR, Case No.: 22-CV-01376-JO-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION 14 EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 21 The parties filed a Joint Motion for Dismissal [Dkt. 20] of the action under Federal 22 Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41 in light of the parties’ settlement. For the reasons discussed 23 below, the Court grants the joint motion. 24 I. DISCUSSION 25 An action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order on terms 26 that the court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Ninth Circuit has held that the decisions to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is within the sound discretion 27 of the district court. Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 28 1 1982) (citing Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)). In ruling 2 on a motion for voluntary dismissal, the District Court must consider whether the defendant 3 will suffer legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145. Legal 4 prejudice refers to “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal 5 argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). 6 Here, the Court finds the joint motion proper. Defendant does not identify, and the 7 Court does not find any legal prejudice that might result from the dismissal of the action. 8 Both parties have stipulated that they performed all the relevant conditions and promises 9 in their settlement agreement, including the settlement payment. Accordingly, the Court 10 grants the joint motion. 11 II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion to Dismiss 13 the Action with prejudice. [Dkt. 20]. The clerk of court shall close this case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: February 27, 2023 _______________________ 17 Hon. Jinsook Ohta 18 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28