Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00414/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00414-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 49:14706 Carmack Amendment Interstate Commerce Act / Liab. of Carriers - Receipts &amp; Bills of Landing

---

1

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

DENNIS BUSCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE OF 

AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS 

DEFENDANT UPS [DOC. 12]; AND

(2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION [DOC. 13]

Defendant United Parcel Service of America, Inc. (“UPS”) removed this case from 

the Superior Court of California on March 1, 2019. (Notice of Removal [Doc. 1].) 

Plaintiff now moves to voluntarily dismiss UPS, and for reconsideration of the order 

denying his prior motion to remand the case to state court. (Mot. to Dismiss UPS [Doc. 

12]; Mot. for Recon. [Doc. 13].) The Court decides the matters on the papers submitted 

and without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons that 

follow, both motions will be granted. 

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
2

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

I. BACKGROUND

On April 19, 2019, parties filed a joint motion to refer Plaintiff’s claims against 

UPS to arbitration. [Doc. 8.] The motion was granted. (Apr. 22, 2019 Order [Doc. 10].) 

On April 2, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand in light of the forthcoming 

dismissal of Defendant UPS. (Mot. to Remand [Doc. 7].) The Court denied the motion, 

as UPS had not yet been dismissed. (May 13, 2019 Order [Doc. 11].) 

On May 17 and 22, 2019, respectively, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss UPS and 

for reconsideration of the previous motion to remand. (Mot. to Dismiss UPS [Doc. 12]; 

Mot. for Recon. [Doc. 13].) Each motion has a hearing date of July 1. Despite proper 

service on all defendants, no opposition to either motion is on file. (Proof of Service re: 

Mot. to Dismiss UPS [Doc. 12-2]; Proof of Service re: Mot. for Recon. [Doc. 13-3].)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Voluntary Dismissal

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss 

an action without a court order by filing: “(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing 

party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of 

dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). “Except as 

provided in Rule 41(a)(1), 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). The 

decision of whether to allow a dismissal rests in the court’s discretion. See Hamilton v. 

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

“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). 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)). Plain legal 

prejudice, however, “does not result merely because the defendant will be 

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
3

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

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, 679 F.2d 

at 145). Rather, the analysis turns on the “rights and defenses available to a defendant in 

future litigation.” See Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 97. “[I]n 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-oflimitations defense.” Id. 

A district court may condition voluntary dismissal on the plaintiffs’ payment of the 

defendants’ fees and costs. See Koch v. Hankins, 8 F.3d 650, 652 (9th Cir. 1993). The 

decision rests in the Court’s discretion. See Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l 

B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989). “A defendant is entitled only to recover, as a 

condition of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), attorneys[’] fees or costs for work 

which is not useful in continuing litigation between the parties.” See Koch, 8 F.3d at

652.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) allows a Court to “correct a clerical mistake 

or a mistake arising from oversight or omission whenever one is found in a judgment, 

order, or other part of the record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). “Substantive changes of mind 

by a court cannot be effected through Rule 60(a).” Buchanan v. United States, 755 F. 

Supp. 319, 324 (D. Or. 1990) (citing Miller v. Transamerican Press, Inc., 709 F.2d 524, 

527 (9th Cir. 1983)). However, “[a] court’s failure to memorialize part of its decision . . . 

is a clerical error.” Id. at 324; see also Blanton v. Anzalone, 813 F.2d 1574, 1577 n.2 

(9th Cir. 1987). Furthermore, “Rule 60(a) can be used to conform a judgment to a prior 

ruling.” Buchanan, 755 F. Supp. at 324.

There are two ways by which a party may seek substantive reconsideration of an 

order: (1) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment),

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
4

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

or (2) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (motion for relief from judgment). See

Hinton v. Pac. Enter., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). 

“Although Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous 

order, the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of 

finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 

229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation omitted). “Indeed, ‘a motion for 

reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the 

district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if 

there is an intervening change in the controlling law.’ ” Id. (quoting 389 Orange St. 

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)). A motion for reconsideration 

“may not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first time when they 

could reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation.” Id. (emphasis omitted). It 

does not give parties a second bite at the apple. See id. “[A]fter thoughts or shifting of 

ground do not constitute an appropriate basis for reconsideration. Ausmus v. Lexington 

Ins. Co., No. 08-CV-2342-L, 2009 WL 2058549, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2009) (Lorenz, 

J.) (internal quotation omitted).

“ ‘Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a 

showing of exceptional circumstances.’ ” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 

1038, 1044 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Ben Sager Chem. Int’l v. E. Targosz & Co., 560 F.2d 

805, 809 (7th Cir. 1977)). Under Rule 60(b), the court may grant reconsideration based 

on: (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect; (2) newly discovered 

evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered before the court’s 

decision; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the adverse party; (4) the 

judgment is void; (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; or (6) any 

other reason justifying relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). The last prong is “used sparingly as 

an equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice and is to be utilized only where 

extraordinary circumstances prevented a party from taking timely action to prevent or 

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
5

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

correct an erroneous judgment.” Delay v. Gordon, 475 F.3d 1039, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007)

(internal quotations omitted).

C. Supplemental Jurisdiction

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

“ ‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial 

decree.’ ” In re Hunter, 66 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)).

Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided 

otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts 

have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental 

jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action 

within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or 

controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such 

supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or 

intervention of additional parties.

28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). “The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if . . . (3) the district court has dismissed all 

claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The decision 

whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction after the dismissal of all claims over which 

the district court had original jurisdiction is purely discretionary. See Carlsbad Tech., 

Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., 556 U.S. 635, 639 (2009).

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
6

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss UPS

Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), 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).

Plaintiff moves to dismiss UPS on the grounds that its claims against that 

defendant were ordered to binding arbitration. (Mot. to Dismiss UPS [Doc. 12].) By not 

filing an opposition, UPS has consented to its dismissal from the action. Civ. L.R. 

7.1(f)(3)(c). 

The motion to dismiss UPS without prejudice will be granted.

B. Motion for Reconsideration

Claims against UPS were brought under 49 U.S.C. § 14706. (Compl. [Doc. 1-1, 

Exh. A].) This is the sole source of the Court’s original jurisdiction over this matter. 

Remaining defendants are non-diverse. By failing to oppose the motion for 

reconsideration, all defendants consent to the granting of the motion. See Civ. L.R. 

7.1(f)(3)(c). With the dismissal of all claims over which the Court has original 

jurisdiction, declination of supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims

is appropriate. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c); Carlsbad Tech., 556 U.S. at 639. 

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration will be granted. [Doc. 13.] This case will be 

remanded to the Superior Court of California.

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
7

19-CV-0414 W (AGS)

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

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss UPS without prejudice is GRANTED. 

[Doc. 12.]

Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his prior motion to 

remand is GRANTED. [Doc. 13.]

This case is REMANDED to the California Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00414-W-AGS Document 14 Filed 07/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7