Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01804/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01804-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

ACCUSER: Michael McGrath,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-1804-WQHKSC

ORDER

vs.

HOME DEPOT USA, Inc., a Delaware

Corporation, and DOES 1 through 99,

inclusive,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) and Motion

for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 18), filed by Plaintiff Michael McGrath.

I. Background

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff Michael McGrath, proceeding pro se, initiated this

action by filing a Complaint against Defendant Home Depot USA, Inc. in San Diego

County Superior Court. (ECF No.1-1).

On August 2, 2013, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this Court, alleging

that this Court has federal question jurisdiction because “the Complaint alleges that it

is a civil rights action alleging discrimination claims under the Americans with

- 1 - 13cv1804-WQH-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-01804-WQH-KSC Document 24 Filed 11/04/13 Page 1 of 4
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

Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.” (ECF No. 1 at 2 (citing Compl. ¶¶ 22-30,

234, 242-90, ECF No. 1-1)).

On September 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 9). 

Plaintiff contends that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because the

Complaint only alleges claims pursuant to California state law. Plaintiff contends that

“Plaintiff’s inclusion of the Americans with Disabilities Act [in the Complaint] is only

an element borrowed to illustrate defendant’s alleged unfair, unlawful and fraudulent

conduct in violation of California Business and Professional Code ... § 17200.” Id. at

2. Plaintiff requests an award of “costs and expenses incurred in connection with

Defendant’s attempt to remove this action.” Id. at 10.

On September 17, 2013, Defendant filed a response in opposition to the Motion

to Remand. (ECF No. 13). On September 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply in support

of the Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 14).

On October 8, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. (ECF

No. 18). Plaintiff moves for an order dismissing this action without prejudice pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Plaintiff states that he “is seeking to

dismiss this case so that he can amend claims to remove any and all federal language

from the Cause of Action and re-file [an] amended Complaint in State court.” Id. at 2.

On October 18, 2013, Defendant filed an opposition to the Motion for Voluntary

Dismissal. (ECF No. 21). Defendant “urges that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s federal

claims with prejudice and dismiss Plaintiff’s state court claims without prejudice.” Id.

at 4. Defendant states: 

Since Plaintiff’s motion is based on abandoning his federal claims so that he can re-file in state court, and given Plaintiff’s representation that he ‘has no intention of pursuing federal claims at all,’ the Court should

dismiss with prejudice Plaintiff’s federal claims raised by and/or asserted by Plaintiff’s action against Home Depot. If the Court does not dismiss

with prejudice, Plaintiff would be free to re-assert his federal claims

against Home Depot in another federal court action, or file again in state court, thereby forcing Home Depot to incur expenses in removing the

case.

Id. at 6.

- 2 - 13cv1804-WQH-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-01804-WQH-KSC Document 24 Filed 11/04/13 Page 2 of 4
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 October 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of the Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal. (ECF No. 23).

II. Discussion

Under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “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 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is without

prejudice unless the order dismissing the case states otherwise. See id. “Rule 41 vests

the district court with discretion to dismiss an action at the plaintiff’s instance upon

such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404,

412 (9th Cir. 2002). “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.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). “Although

case law does not articulate a precise definition of ‘legal prejudice,’ the cases focus on

the rights and defenses available to a defendant in future litigation.” Westlands Water

Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996) (“For example, in determining

what will amount to legal prejudice, courts have examined whether a dismissal without

prejudice would result in the loss of a federal forum, or the right to a jury trial, or a

statute-of-limitations defense.”).

After review of the record and the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that

Defendant has failed to show that it will suffer plain legal prejudice if this action is

dismissed in its entirety without prejudice. Cf. id. at 96 (“[T]he threat of future

litigation which causes uncertainty is insufficient to establish plain legal prejudice.”);

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

legal prejudice ... does not result simply when defendant faces the prospect of a second

lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some tactical advantage.”). The Court finds that

dismissal of this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is appropriate. 

Plaintiff’s alternative request for remand is denied, and Plaintiff’s request for costs and

expenses is denied.

- 3 - 13cv1804-WQH-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-01804-WQH-KSC Document 24 Filed 11/04/13 Page 3 of 4
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

III. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No.

18) is GRANTED, and the Motion to Remand (ECF No. 9) is DENIED. Pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action is dismissed without prejudice. 

The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED: November 4, 2013

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv1804-WQH-KSC

Case 3:13-cv-01804-WQH-KSC Document 24 Filed 11/04/13 Page 4 of 4