Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00662-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

CORINA MAREZ, as guardian ad litem 

for E.R., K.R., and S.R., minors; and 

RUBY RODRIGUES, an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a 

Kansas limited liability company, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS, LLC AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT 

TO CLOSE THE CASE

(Doc. No. 104)

On September 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed a request for voluntary dismissal of defendant 

Correct Care Solutions, LLC, with prejudice, representing that this defendant had complied with 

the terms of a settlement agreement reached by the parties. (Doc. No. 104.) However, defendant 

Correct Care Solutions, LLC has previously filed an answer in this action. (Doc. No. 73.) 

Accordingly, plaintiffs may no longer voluntarily dismiss Correct Care Solutions, LLC 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). 

/////

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 105 Filed 09/06/16 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

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 

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, defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC will suffer no discernable legal prejudice and 

plaintiff furthermore requests that the dismissal be with prejudice. Defendant Correct Care 

Solutions, LLC has purportedly complied with the terms of a settlement agreement reached with 

plaintiffs. The court therefore finds that dismissal with prejudice is appropriate. 

Accordingly, defendant Correct Care Solutions, LLC is dismissed with prejudice. Since 

there are no other remaining defendants in this action, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close 

the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00662-DAD-SKO Document 105 Filed 09/06/16 Page 2 of 2