Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02206/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02206-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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 1

The Court previously has dismissed all other Defendants.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kenneth Long, the surviving father of

Cynthia Jo Johnson, on his own behalf,

and as the Personal Representative of the

Estate of Cynthia Jo Johnson, and as the

guardian and/or next best friend of minors

Christopher Dean Johnson, Sean

McKnight, and Samantha McKnight, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v.

Ford Motor Company, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV 07-2206-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendant TRW Automotive

U.S., LLC Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). (Doc. #102.) Plaintiffs request that

the Court dismiss the case without prejudice. Defendant TRW Automotive U.S., LLC

(“TRW AUS”) argues that the dismissal should be with prejudice.1

On October 27, 2008, after performing an inspection, TRW AUS told Plaintiffs that

it had determined that the seatbelt assembly at issue in this case was designed in part,

manufactured in part, and finally assembled by TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. (“TRW

VSSI”), which was the proper defendant. However, during the discovery process, Defendant

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 105 Filed 07/29/09 Page 1 of 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

2

The Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to add TRW

VSSI as a Defendant on April 1, 2009. 

- 2 -

TRW AUS repeatedly requested that Plaintiffs dismiss the claims against it because it had

no responsibility for the seatbelt assembly. And, as early as February of 2008, Plaintiffs had

information from former Defendant Ford that TRW VSSI was the supplier for the seatbelts

originally installed in the subject vehicle.2

Because Defendant TRW AUS has answered, Plaintiffs can voluntarily dismiss this

case only with the Court’s permission. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) allows a

plaintiff, pursuant to court order, and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems

proper, to dismiss an action without prejudice at any time. Westlands Water Dist. v. United

States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996)(citing Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l B.V.,

889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989)). When deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss

without prejudice, the Court must determine whether the Defendant will suffer some plain

legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Westlands, 100 F.3d at 96. The Court should

grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless a defendant can demonstrate that it will suffer

some plain legal prejudice as a result. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Legal prejudice means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal

argument.” Id. at 976 (internal citations omitted). Neither the threat of future litigation,

which causes uncertainty, nor a plaintiff’s delay in moving for dismissal, nor the substantial

expense that a defendant has incurred in defending up until the motion to dismiss sufficiently

establishes plain legal prejudice. Westlands, 100 F.3d at 96-97. Also, plain legal prejudice

does not result “merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend

in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal.”

Smith, 263 F.3d at 976. 

Defendant TRW AUS has argued that Plaintiffs unnecessarily delayed in moving to

dismiss it as a party, but TRW AUS has not demonstrated that it will suffer plain legal

prejudice if the Court grants Plaintiffs’ Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss. The Court therefore

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 105 Filed 07/29/09 Page 2 of 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

3

The Court grants the pending Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss without prejudice to

TRW AUS later filing for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this case if Plaintiffs sue TRW

AUS on the same claims in a different court or forum. See, e.g., Westlands Water Dist. v.

United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97(9th Cir. 1996)(holding that while the substantial expense

incurred by a defendant in defending a case does not justify denying a motion to dismiss

without prejudice, courts can protect a defendant’s interest by conditioning a dismissal

without prejudice upon the payment of appropriate costs and attorney fees).

- 3 -

will grant the Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss without Prejudice.3

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Defendant

TRW Automotive U.S., LLC Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), without prejudice

(Doc. #102). This Order disposes of this case in its entirety.

DATED this 28th day of July, 2009.

Case 2:07-cv-02206-JAT Document 105 Filed 07/29/09 Page 3 of 3