Schaufus v. Freedom Mortgage Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Thomas J. Whelan (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Donald Schaufus and Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation filed a joint motion to dismiss Freedom from the action with prejudice. The court granted the joint motion, dismissed Freedom with prejudice, denied Freedom's pending motion to dismiss as moot, dismissed the Doe defendants without prejudice, and closed the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to dismiss Freedom Mortgage Corporation with prejudice“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the joint motion [Doc. 11]. Freedom is dismissed from this action with prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the parties' agreement to dismiss the defendant with prejudice, which is a standard procedural mechanism allowing parties to control their own litigation. |
Denying Freedom Mortgage Corporation's motion to dismiss as moot“Freedom’s pending motion to dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT [Doc. 8].” | agree with court Because the defendant was dismissed from the case via the joint motion, the defendant's own motion to dismiss the complaint is no longer relevant or pending, making it moot. |
Dismissing Doe Defendants without prejudice“the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s case against all Defendants other than Freedom.” | agree with court The court correctly dismissed the unidentified 'Doe' defendants without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff the opportunity to identify them and amend the complaint, consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the dismissal of Doe defendants. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly processes the joint motion to dismiss a specific defendant, handles the resulting mootness of the defendant's own motion, and properly addresses the remaining Doe defendants by dismissing them without prejudice to preserve the plaintiff's right to amend. The citation to Wakefield v. Thompson is appropriate for the treatment of Doe defendants.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 DONALD SCHAUFUS, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01252-W-BGS 9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 10 v. MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, DENYING AS MOOT 11 FREEDOM MORTGAGE MOTION TO DISMISS, AND CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, DISMISSING DOE DEFENDANTS 12 inclusive, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 Defendants.
15 16 Plaintiff Donald Schaufus and Defendant Freedom Mortgage Corporation 17 (“Freedom”) filed a joint motion to dismiss Freedom from this action with prejudice. 18 Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the joint motion [Doc. 11]. Freedom is 19 dismissed from this action with prejudice. Per the terms of the joint motion, each party 20 will bear its own fees and costs. Freedom’s pending motion to dismiss is DENIED AS 21 MOOT [Doc. 8]. 22 Because no other Defendant is named, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT 23 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s case against all Defendants other than Freedom. See 24 Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 1999); Hernandez v. San 25 Bernardino Cnty, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14476, 2023 WL 3432206 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 26 // 27 // 28 1 || 2023). Plaintiff may file an amended complaint to identify a Doe Defendant and amend 2 || his allegations to include a Doe Defendant dismissed without prejudice by this Order. 3 The Court further instructs the Clerk to close the case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. > || Dated: August 21, 2023 7 {TA akin Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28