Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01528/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01528-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

BETTY ANN BIRD, 

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-1528-W(NLS)

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

VOLUNTARILY DISMISS

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[DOC. 55] 

v.

PSC HOLDINGS I, LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this action in the San Diego Superior

Court. Thereafter, Defendants timely removed the action to this Court. Plaintiff now

moves to voluntarily dismiss her sixth cause of action for sex discrimination. 

Defendants oppose.

The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral

argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d.1). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss.

I. ANALYSIS

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) where, as in this case, a defendant

has filed an answer, an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court

- 1 - 12cv1528

Case 3:12-cv-01528-W-NLS Document 73 Filed 04/17/14 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

order and on terms that the court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “A

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

a defendant cant show 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 (quoting

Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

“Uncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or because “the threat of future

litigation . . . causes uncertainty does not result in plain legal prejudice. Westlands

Water, 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

(citing Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982)). 

According to Plaintiff,“Defendants refuse[d] to this dismissal,” after Plaintiff had

“proposed a ‘no strings attached’ dismissal, preserving any claim for costs or fees or

anything else.” (Pl.’s Mot. 1:2–6.) Plaintiff adds that “[b]y this motion, Plaintiff seeks

to narrow the claims and issues, thereby simplifying the evidence, argument, and jury

instructions at the time of trial.” (Id. at 1:13–21.) After citing non-binding authority

in the Sixth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits, Defendants present the following argument

that they would sustain “plain legal prejudice”:

Defendants unquestionably have invested significant

resources in defending against all of Plaintiff’s claims,

including her discrimination claim. Defendants and their

counsel have expended a number of hours investigating the

facts and allegations which led to Plaintiff’s discrimination

claim, including reviewing and identifying documents that

are relevant to the claim or support their defenses. In

addition, the parties have engaged in extensive discovery,

such as writtendiscovery, Defendants’ disclosure of an expert

witness and an expert report, depositions of ten witnesses,

and production of thousands of documents. Now, after

nearly two years of litigation, Plaintiff improperly seeks to

dismiss her discrimination claim without prejudice and force

Defendants into needless piecemeal litigation. Because

dismissal of Plaintiff’s discrimination claim will result in plain

legal prejudice to Defendants, Plaintiff’s request to dismiss

her claim without prejudice should be denied.

- 2 - 12cv1528

Case 3:12-cv-01528-W-NLS Document 73 Filed 04/17/14 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

(Defs.’ Opp’n 2:17–3:26.) Defendants alternatively request that the Court exercise its

discretion, and either dismiss the sex-discrimination claim with prejudice or attach

conditions to the voluntarily dismissal of the claim “to prevent prejudice.” (Id. at

4:1–5:1.)

Upon reviewing Defendants’ argument, it merely amounts to the inconvenience

of having had to defend against the discrimination claim up to this point, and the

potential of the claim being brought later producing “piecemeal litigation.” These

potential outcomes from dismissal are not the type that rise to plain legal prejudice

under Ninth Circuit authority. See Smith, 263 F.3d at 976; Westlands Water, 100 F.3d

at 96-97. Consequently, Defendants fail to demonstrate that they would sustain plain

legal prejudice from the dismissal of Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for sex

discrimination. See id. 1

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion, and

DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s sixth cause of action for sex

discrimination. Furthermore, the Court declines to exercise its discretion in the

manner Defendants request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 17, 2014

HON. THOMAS J. WHELAN

United States District Court

Southern District of California

On a related matter, the Court notes Defendants failed to address Plaintiff’s accusation that 1

they rejected a “no strings attached” dismissal that would preserve only the issue of whether any party

is entitled to costs or fees. Though the circumstances surrounding the proposed dismissal do not affect

the disposition of this order, the Court nonetheless finds it noteworthy and suspicious.

- 3 - 12cv1528

Case 3:12-cv-01528-W-NLS Document 73 Filed 04/17/14 Page 3 of 3