Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04526/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04526-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

ELEANOR A. BATUHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ASSURITY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04526-WHO 

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 46

On May 16, 2016, plaintiff filed a letter requesting dismissal of this case without prejudice

and stating that she “would like to start over and file once again” in state court. Dkt. No. 46. 

Defendant Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (“Caliber”) filed a response to the letter on May 31, 2016, 

Dkt. No. 48, and plaintiff filed a reply to Caliber’s response on June 8, 2016, Dkt. No. 49. 

Having considered the parties’ filings, I find that plaintiff’s claims against Caliber may 

only be dismissed with prejudice. “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a 

voluntary dismissal under [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound 

discretion of the district court.” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th 

Cir. 1982). “When ruling on a motion to dismiss without prejudice, the district court must 

determine whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the 

dismissal.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). In making 

this determination, “[a] district court may consider whether the plaintiff is requesting a voluntary 

dismissal only to avoid a near-certain adverse ruling.” Maxum Indem. Ins. Co. v. A-1 All Am. 

Roofing Co., 299 F. Appx. 664, 666 (9th Cir. 2008); see also AF Holdings LLC v. Navasca, No. 

12-cv-02396-EMC, 2013 WL 1748011, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013) (“[A] dismissal to avoid 

an adverse determination on the merits of the action or even to avoid the effect of other 

unfavorable, but not necessarily dispositive, rulings by the court may constitute legal prejudice.”) 

Case 3:15-cv-04526-WHO Document 50 Filed 06/17/16 Page 1 of 2
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

(internal quotation marks omitted).

In light of the two prior substantive orders in this case – one granting Caliber’s motion for 

judgment on the pleadings and the other granting its motion to dismiss – and the absence of any 

indication that plaintiff can amend her allegations to surmount the holdings in those orders, I find 

that Caliber would suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of a dismissal without prejudice of 

the claims against it. Accordingly, plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss her claims against defendant 

Assurity Financial Services, LLC without prejudice, but her claims against Caliber may only be 

dismissed with prejudice.

Where a district court imposes conditions on a request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), 

“a plaintiff has the choice between accepting the conditions and obtaining dismissal [or], if [s]he 

feels that the conditions are too burdensome, withdrawing [her] motion and proceeding with the 

case on the merits.” Lau v. Glendora Unified Sch. Dist., 792 F.2d 929, 930-31 (9th Cir. 1986). 

The plaintiff must be given “a reasonable period of time within which to refuse the conditional 

voluntary dismissal by withdrawing her motion for dismissal or to accept the dismissal despite the 

imposition of conditions.” Id. at 931. 

Plaintiff has ten (10) days from the date of this Order to withdraw her request for dismissal 

and file her second amended complaint. If she does not do so, this case will be dismissed in 

accordance with this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2016

______________________________________

WILLIAM H. ORRICK

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04526-WHO Document 50 Filed 06/17/16 Page 2 of 2