Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00321/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00321-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT NEVILLE, MD,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARGUERITE DILL,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv321-CAB-MDD

ORDER REGARDING EX PARTE 

MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. No. 20]

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff Robert Neville (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Voluntary 

Dismissal” [Doc. No. 25], which this Court deemed an ex parte motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a)(2) [Doc. No. 26]. On August 20, 2019, Defendant 

Marguerite Dill (“Defendant”) filed a conditional non-opposition to the motion. [Doc. 

No. 29.] No reply has been filed. The motion is granted with modification as set forth 

below.

Background

On January 3, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Georgia permanently enjoined Plaintiff “from, either directly or indirectly, litigating the 

administration of Jessica Neville’s estate or the Bulloch Property transaction any further 

in this Court.” Neville v. McCaghren (“McCaphren Action”), Case No. 6:17cv75-JRHCase 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

JEG, 2019 WL 97836, at *6 (Jan. 3, 2019).1 Just over a month later, on February 14, 

2019 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed an action in this Court 

related to the administration of Jessica Neville’s estate and the Bulloch Property 

transactions, this time naming Marguerite Dill as defendant. [Doc. Nos. 1, 6, 7.]

Defendant filed her answer on May 7, 2019. [Doc. No. 10.]

On May 16, 2019, Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin issued a Notice and Order 

for Early Neutral Evaluation and Case Management Conference to be held June 20, 2019. 

[Doc. No. 11.] On June 20, 2019, Defendant and her attorneys appeared for the 

ENE/CMC, but Plaintiff failed to appear. The Court issued an OSC the same day [Doc. 

No. 14], ordering Plaintiff to personally appear at a hearing on July 26, 2019 to show 

cause why he should not be sanctioned for failing to appear at the ENE/CMC. 

On July 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC requesting leave to appear 

at the July 26 OSC hearing by telephone, which request was granted by Judge Dembin on 

July 24, 2019. [Doc. Nos. 16, 17.]

On July 26, 2019, Defendant personally appeared with her attorneys for the OSC

hearing, while Plaintiff made an appearance by phone. Judge Dembin advised Plaintiff

that he would be issuing sanctions for Plaintiff’s failure to appear at both hearings set to 

date, and invited Defendant to submit an ex parte request for attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in connection with both the ENE/CMC and the OSC hearing. Judge Dembin also 

set another ENE/CMC for August 20, 2019, at which the parties were ordered to 

personally appear in accordance with the Court’s rules. [Doc. No. 23.]

On August 2, 2019, pursuant to Judge Dembin’s instruction, Defendant filed and 

served an ex parte request for costs in the amount of One Thousand & 00/100 Dollars 

($1000.00), representing Defendant’s costs incurred in connection with the ENE/CMC 

and the OSC hearing. [Doc. No. 18.]

 

1 The McCaghren Action named as defendant Elizabeth McCaghren, Defendant Dill’s sister and 

Plaintiff Neville’s half-sister. McCaghren, Neville and Dill are all children of Jessica Neville, who was 

killed in a Florida house fire in 2008. See 2019 WL 97836 at *1; Doc. No. 6 at 1.

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

On August 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a letter with this Court, which was docketed as 

an objection [Doc. No. 20], requesting removal of Judge Dembin from presiding as 

magistrate in this matter and requesting assignment of a new magistrate judge. On August 

5, 2019, this Court denied the objection. [Doc. No. 21.]

On August 13, 2019, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, which this

Court docketed as the presently pending ex parte motion to dismiss the action. [Doc. No. 

25.] This Court set a briefing schedule on the same date. [Doc. No. 26.]

On August 15, 2019, Judge Dembin issued an order sanctioning Plaintiff and 

awarding Defendant her costs as submitted. [Doc. No. 28.] Judge Dembin also vacated

the ENE/CMC hearing scheduled for August 20, 2019. [Doc. No. 27.]

Discussion

Under Rule 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by 

court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Dismissal 

is without prejudice unless the order states otherwise. Id. “The purpose of the rule is to 

permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will not 

be prejudiced, or unfairly affected by dismissal.” Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla 

Int'l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989) (internal citation omitted) (citing Davis v. 

USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270, 1273 (4th Cir. 1987); McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 

F.2d 855, 856 (11th Cir. 1986); LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 

1976) ). Whether to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) lies in the sound 

discretion of the district court. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here it appears that Plaintiff has engaged in forum-shopping in an attempt to 

circumvent the rulings and sanctions issued in the McCaghren Action. Then, after failing 

to appear at two hearings in this action, and being sanctioned by Judge Dembin, Plaintiff 

has asked to dismiss this case. In order to prevent further prejudice to Defendant, the 

terms for dismissal that this court “considers proper” are that the dismissal be with 

prejudice and that Defendant be awarded costs as previously ordered by Judge Dembin.

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

19cv321-CAB-MDD

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

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the ex parte motion to dismiss pursuant to 

Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a)(2) is GRANTED as follows: This action is HEREBY 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Plaintiff is required to pay the sanctions in the 

amount of $1,000 awarded to Defendant. The Clerk shall enter judgment for Defendant 

and CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00321-CAB-MDD Document 30 Filed 09/06/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4