Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01147/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01147-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Petition to Quiet Title

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Oscar Osuna 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bank of America, a/k/a BOA Home Loans 

Servicing, L.P.; ReconTrust Company, 

N.A. as Trustee, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-11-01147-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants 

Bank of America, N.A. and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (“Defendants”). (Doc. 23.) Also 

pending is Plaintiff Oscar Osuna’s Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice. (Doc. 24.) For 

the reasons discussed below, Osuna’s motion is granted and Defendants’ motion is 

denied as moot. 

 Osuna filed suit in state court in May 2011 asserting a variety of claims against 

Defendants in connection with a loan that he claims he does not owe to Defendants on his 

home. (Doc. 1-1.) Defendants removed this action to federal court and on December 13, 

2011, this Court dismissed all of Osuna’s claims except Count 4, the action to quiet title. 

(Doc. 9 at 9.) 

 Defendants proceeded to serve interrogatories and requests for production of 

documents on Osuna, but Osuna apparently never responded. (Doc. 23 at 2 n.1.) 

Defendants then filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. Osuna did not respond to this 

motion, but instead filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Osuna laid 

Case 2:11-cv-01147-GMS Document 26 Filed 10/15/12 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 

out no reasons for his request to dismiss the case. Because Defendants have already filed 

an Answer in this case, (Doc. 13), Osuna’s Notice is construed as a Rule 41(a)(2) motion 

for voluntary dismissal. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2) (requiring the plaintiff to obtain the 

court’s permission before dismissing an action if an answer or motion for summary 

judgment has been filed). 

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

defendant has made a showing 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. “Uncertainty 

because a dispute remains unresolved” or “the threat of future litigation” do not constitute 

plain legal prejudice. Id. Nor is plain legal prejudice established by a showing that the 

defendant has already begun trial preparations. Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 

Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, “the mere inconvenience of 

defending another lawsuit does not constitute plain legal prejudice.” Id.

 Defendants argue that Osuna’s motion for voluntary dismissal should be denied 

because his lawsuit is frivolous. They also argue that Osuna “should not be permitted to 

hold the threat of future litigation over Defendants.” 

 The Ninth Circuit has expressly stated that the threat of future litigation is not a 

ground for prejudice that warrants denial of a Rule 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary 

dismissal. Defendants have made no other arguments that Osuna’s voluntary dismissal 

will cause them legal prejudice. As such, Osuna’s motion for voluntary dismissal is 

granted. 

 Because Defendants will not suffer plain legal prejudice, Osuna’s Motion to 

Dismiss without Prejudice is granted. Because the case will be dismissed, Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss without Prejudice 

of Oscar Osuna (Doc. 24) is GRANTED. 

Case 2:11-cv-01147-GMS Document 26 Filed 10/15/12 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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment of 

Defendants Bank of America, N.A. and ReconTrust Company, N.A. (Doc. 23) is 

DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate this action. 

 Dated this 15th day of October, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-01147-GMS Document 26 Filed 10/15/12 Page 3 of 3