Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01069/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01069-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT L. GOOD dba CASTLE ROCK CASE NO. CV F 09-1069 LJO SKO

VINEYARDS, 

Plaintiff, ORDER TO DISMISS AND CLOSE

vs.

NEW WORLD FRUITS, LTD.,

Defendant.

 /

In the June 4, 2010 scheduling report, plaintiff Albert L. Good d.b.a. Castle Rock Vineyards

(“plaintiff”) requested to dismiss this action voluntarily without prejudice. Because defendant New

World Fruits, LTD (“defendant”) filed an answer to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff may only dismissthis

case by order of this Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (“[A]n action may be dismissed at the

plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.”). The purpose of the

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) voluntary dismissal rule is to permit the plaintiff to dismiss without prejudice

so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced. Stevedoring Servs. of America v. Armilla Intern’l B.V.,

889 F.2d 919 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, a district court should grant a motion for voluntarydismissal

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) unless the defendant can show that it will suffer some “plain legal

prejudice” as a result of the dismissal. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). Generally,

a Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) dismissal is without prejudice, as stated explicitly in that rule. Id.

1

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 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

“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). Legal prejudice

occurs “when the dismissal of a party would have rendered the remaining parties unable to conduct

sufficient discoveryto untangle complex fraud claims and adequatelydefend themselves against charges

of fraud.” Id. The threat of future litigation is insufficient to establish plain legal prejudice. Id. 

Similarly, no plain legal prejudice occurs when a defendant has been inconvenienced by the

commencement of trial preparations, Hyde &Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1994), a defendant

will be unconvinced by having to defend in another forum, or a plaintiff will gain a tactical advantage

by the dismissal. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2001); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber

Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143 (9th Cir. 1982).

Having considered the docket, including evidence that defendant is involved in a liquidation

proceeding in the United Kingdom, and that plaintiff is an unsecured creditor in that proceeding, this

Court finds that dismissal of this action is appropriate. In addition, defendant is a corporation

proceeding without representation. On February 26, 2010, defendant was ordered to obtain counsel to

represent it in this action. Defendant failed to comply with this Court’s order. According, pursuant to

Local Rule 110 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this Court:

1. DISMISSES this action without prejudice, each party to bear its own costs;

2. DIRECTS the clerk of court to close this action; and

3. DIRECTS the clerk of court to send notice of this dismissal to defendant at the following

address:

New World Fruits, Ltd.

c/o Neil Frances Hickling, Esq.–Liquidator

Smith & Williamson

No 1 St. Swithin Street

Worcester

WR1 2PY

United Kingdom 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01069-LJO-SKO Document 28 Filed 06/07/10 Page 2 of 2