Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00513/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00513-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1396 - Tort Negligence

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT COMSTOCK, an individual; 

TAMARACK BIOTICS PTE LTD, a 

Singaporean corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

INTERTEK HEALTH SCIENCES INC. 

d/b/a INTERTEK SCIENTIFIC & 

REGULATORY CONSULTANTS, a 

Canadian corporation

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-00513-DAD-BAM

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH

PREJUDICE AND CLOSING CASE

(Doc. No. 24)

On April 11, 2016, plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary dismissal of the action, with 

prejudice and with each party to bear their own costs and attorney’s fees. (Doc. No. 24.) 

However, defendant has previously filed an answer in this action. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, 

plaintiffs may no longer voluntarily dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), but 

must file a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of 

dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2) motion requires court approval. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a); Wilson v.

City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a 

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Waller v. Fin. Corp. 

of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 

Case 1:15-cv-00513-DAD-BAM Document 26 Filed 04/13/16 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

F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir. 1982). ―Legal prejudice‖ means ―prejudice to some legal interest, 

some legal claim, some legal argument.‖ Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97

(9th Cir. 1996). A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) normally is without prejudice, as explicitly 

stated in that rule. However, a dismissal with prejudice—so that claims cannot be reasserted in 

another federal suit—strengthens the conclusion that the dismissal causes no legal prejudice and 

is not an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). In this 

matter, plaintiff requests that the dismissal be with prejudice and defendant will thus suffer no 

discernable legal prejudice if that request is granted. The court therefore finds that dismissal of 

the action with prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, the action is dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed 

to close the case.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

The court issues no order as to costs or attorney’s fees.

Case 1:15-cv-00513-DAD-BAM Document 26 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2