Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05082/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05082-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DERRICK NATHANIEL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

NEW UNITED MOTOR MANUFACTURING,

INC., et al.,

Defendants

 /

No. C 04-5082 MMC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO

ENTER PROPOSED JUDGMENT

SUBMITTED BY DEFENDANT NEW

UNITED MOTOR MANUFACTURING,

INC.

Before the Court is a proposed judgment, submitted March 10, 2006 by defendant

New United Motor Manufacturing Inc. (“NUMMI”), by which NUMMI requests an award of

costs in its favor. On March 14, 2006, plaintiff Derrick Nathaniel filed an objection to the

proposed judgment. Having reviewed the proposed judgment, plaintiff’s objection thereto,

and all other relevant documents on file in this matter, the Court rules as follows.

On October 27, 2004, plaintiff filed his complaint, containing seven causes of action,

against five defendants. On June 9, 2005, the Court, upon stipulation of the parties,

dismissed three causes of action with prejudice as to all defendants, and dismissed all

remaining claims against all defendants other than NUMMI. On March 2, 2006, plaintiff

filed a request for dismissal of the entire action without prejudice, to which NUMMI

responded by filing a statement indicating its non-opposition to dismissal of the remaining

Case 3:04-cv-05082-MMC Document 40 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 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

2

claims without prejudice and noting that certain defendants and claims had previously been

dismissed with prejudice; NUMMI did not request an award of costs as a term or condition

of such dismissal. On March 3, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for dismissal. 

Thereafter, on March 3, 2006, the Clerk of the Court closed the case.

Where a district court dismisses an action upon a plaintiff’s motion, the dismissal

shall be entered “upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Before imposing any such term or condition, however, the court must

notify the plaintiff of its intent to do so, see Lau v. Glendora Unified Sch. Dist., 792 F. 2d

929, 930-31 (9th Cir. 1986), thus “grant[ing] to the plaintiff the option to refuse the voluntary

dismissal if the conditions imposed are too onerous,” id. at 930 (reversing order imposing

condition on dismissal, where district court did not give plaintiff prior notice of its intent to

impose condition so as to afford plaintiff opportunity to withdraw motion to dismiss).

Here, NUMMI, in its response to plaintiff’s request for dismissal, did not seek an

order, or in any way even suggest, that the Court condition entry of dismissal on an award

of costs. Rather, NUMMI waited until after the dismissal was entered to seek imposition of

such condition. Under the circumstances, NUMMI’s request for an award of costs as a

condition of dismissal is untimely, and, accordingly, NUMMI’s request for a judgment

awarding costs is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05082-MMC Document 40 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 2