Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT 

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AS TO 

DEFENDANTS CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.,

MB ENTERPRISES, INC., MASSOUD 

ENRAHIMI, AND BHAGDEEP S. 

DHALIWAL

Re: ECF No. 289

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for voluntary dismissal as to Defendants 

Chevron U.S.A. Inc., MB Enterprises, Inc., Massoud Enrahimi, and Bhagdeep S. Dhaliwal, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court will grant the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2011, Plaintiffs Ryan, Anne, and Reese Schaeffer (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit 

against Chevron U.S.A. Inc., MB Enterprises, Inc., Massoud Enrahimi, and Bhagdeep S. Dhaliwal

(the “Chevron and MBE Defendants”), and others, in Contra Costa County Superior Court 

alleging personal injury and environmental contamination. ECF No. 1. The action was then 

removed to this Court. Id. Plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, 

ultrahazardous activity, waste, cost recovery under California’s Hazardous Substance Account 

Act, and for violations of Business and Professions Code §17200. Id. Plaintiffs allege that the 

Chevron and MBE Defendants owned and controlled property at the time hazardous wastes were 

“handled, generated, transported, disposed of, used, stored, and/or released into the environment 

from dry cleaning tenants and the service station operations.” ECF No. 1 ¶ 3. 

On July 1, 2015, the Chevron and MBE Defendants filed their motion for good faith 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 298 Filed 11/24/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

settlement determination. ECF No. 255. On July 8, 2015, Plaintiffs submitted a joinder in support 

of the motion. ECF No. 262. The Plaintiffs and the Chevron and MBE Defendants agreed, 

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, to a general release of all claims 

against the Chevron and MBE Defendants in exchange for their settlement payment of $205,000 

to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 256, Ex. A. On August 31, 2015, the Court granted the motion for good 

faith settlement determination. ECF No. 282. 

On September 28, 2015, the parties filed the instant motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), with prejudice. ECF No. 289. The motion 

is unopposed. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs the voluntary dismissal of an action by the 

plaintiff. A plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of the parties in an action. 

See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 

(citations omitted). “[A] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless a 

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 

263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001); Waller v. Financial Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th 

Cir.1987). “Plain legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] 

some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). 

The Court may dismiss with or without prejudice, but “[u]nless the order states otherwise, a 

dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs and the Chevron and MBE Defendants jointly move for the action to be 

dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 289. The parties also request that the motion be granted with 

“settling parties to bear their own fees and costs as between the settling parties.” Id.

The Court must first consider, under Rule 41(a), whether dismissal of the Chevron and 

MBE Defendants would result in legal prejudice to any other Defendants in this action. Per Civil 

Local Rule 7-3(a), any oppositions to the joint motion were due no later than October 20, 2015. 

No Defendants filed an opposition to the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the Chevron and 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 298 Filed 11/24/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

MBE Defendants. The Court concludes no Defendant will suffer plain legal prejudice as a result 

of its dismissal from the action with prejudice. See Lenches, 263 F.3d at 975. In exchange for 

settlement, Plaintiffs have already agreed to a release of all claims against the Chevron and MBE 

Defendants. ECF No. 256, Ex. A.

The parties have also requested that the Court order the settling parties to bear their own 

fees and costs. ECF No. 289. The Court finds that dismissal of the Chevron and MBE Defendants 

with prejudice is appropriate and orders that the settling parties bear their own fees and costs 

related to this action. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss all 

claims against the Chevron and MBE Defendants with prejudice. The settling parties are to bear 

their own fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 298 Filed 11/24/15 Page 3 of 3