Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01207/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01207-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting 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

05

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL ROYBAL; VIDA ROYBAL,

2:05-cv-1207-MCE-KLM

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

EQUIFAX, TRANSUNION, EXPERIAN,

RICKENBACKER, MEDAMERICA, CITY

TOWING BODY SHOP, INC., SEARS,

and DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

In bringing the present motion, Daniel and Vida Roybal

("Plaintiffs") seek to voluntarily dismiss their federal claims

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) in favor of pursuing those

claims in a state forum. Equifax Information Services LLC

(“Equifax”), Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”) and Experian

Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) (collectively

"Defendants") oppose Plaintiffs’ Motion on the ground that

Plaintiffs’ Motion is disingenuous and is a blatant attempt to

forum shop. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Dismiss their federal claims is denied. 

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 89 Filed 04/14/06 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

2

BACKGROUND

The Court has previously set forth a detailed factual

background for this action in its Order of October 19, 2005,

which is incorporated by reference and need not be reproduced

herein. Mem. & Order 2-3, October 19, 2005.

STANDARD

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).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides:

Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision

of this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the

plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and

upon such terms and conditions as the court deems

proper. If a counterclaim has been pleaded by a

defendant prior to the service upon the defendant of

the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, the action shall not

be dismissed against the defendant's objection unless

the counterclaim can remain pending for independent

adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified

in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is

without prejudice.

The Ninth Circuit has clarified that legal prejudice means

“prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal

argument.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir.

2001)(quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d

94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 89 Filed 04/14/06 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

3

In so holding, the Court further explained that “uncertainty

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

future litigation . . . causes uncertainty” does not result in

plain legal prejudice. Id. at 976. 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.

Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145.

ANALYSIS

Defendants’ chief argument is that Plaintiffs are forum

shopping as evidenced by the procedural history in this case. 

Specifically, Plaintiffs first filed their action on May 10,

2005, in the California superior court. Defendants timely

removed that action to this forum on June 15, 2005, based on

federal question jurisdiction. After several of the Defendants

had answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint, Defendant Rickenbacker filed

a Motion to Dismiss. This Court granted Defendant Rickenbacker’s

Motion on October 20, 2005. On October 27, 2005, Plaintiffs

filed a second action in the superior court alleging almost

identical claims to those existing in the action currently before

this Court. Plaintiffs then filed the present Motion to Dismiss

their federal claims voluntarily.

Legal prejudice is defined as “prejudice to some legal

interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands

Water District, 100 F.3d at 96. 

///

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 89 Filed 04/14/06 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

4

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. See id.

The Court finds that granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss

will result in legal prejudice to Defendants. Dismissing

Plaintiffs’ federal action will deprive Defendants of the federal

forum they have elected. Defendants removed the original action

to this forum yet Plaintiffs chose not to dismiss as of right

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) nor did Plaintiffs move this Court to

remand the action. Instead, Plaintiffs chose to refile claims

that had previously been dismissed by this Court and then seek a

voluntary dismissal. Defendants have elected to litigate

Plaintiffs’ claims in this forum, the Court has jurisdiction and

the case is well underway. Because legal prejudice to Defendants

will otherwise result, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Dismiss its claims.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Dismiss is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 14, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-01207-MCE -KJM Document 89 Filed 04/14/06 Page 4 of 4