Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00550/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00550-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
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 05CV0550-J (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNIE LAGUILLES,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRANS UNION, LLC, 

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05CV0550-J (CAB)

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Before the Court is a document that the Court construes as a motion by Plaintiff Ernie

Laguilles (“Plaintiff”) to dismiss his action without prejudice. [Doc. No. 50.] Defendant Trans

Union (“Defendant”) has not opposed Plaintiff’s efforts to dismiss the action. For the reasons

set forth below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion for a court order dismissing the case

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 

Background

On March 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging that Defendant violated

provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. [Doc. No. 1.] Defendant Trans Union filed an

Answer to the Complaint. [Doc. No. 5.] On October 20, 2005, the Court permitted Plaintiff’s

counsel to withdraw, finding that Plaintiff’s counsel had sufficiently alleged facts indicating that

Case 3:05-cv-00550-J-CAB Document 52 Filed 11/21/06 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 05CV0550-J (CAB)

Plaintiff’s conduct rendered it impossible for counsel to continue representation. [Doc. No. 34.]

The Court subsequently received a document from Plaintiff stating that he “decided to withdraw

the case” because he could not find counsel to represent him. [Doc. No. 50.] Because Plaintiff

now proceeds pro se, the Court construes this document as a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s case

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). See Bernhardt v. County of

Los Angeles, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Courts have a duty to construe pro se pleadings

liberally, including pro se motions as well as complaints.”).

Discussion

Whether to grant a voluntary dismissal after the defendant has answered the complaint is left to

the discretion of the district court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire &

Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). A court must consider whether the defendant will suffer

legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145; Westlands Water Dist. v. United

States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996). The defendant must show “prejudice to some legal interest,

some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97.

Here, Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s efforts to dismiss this action. In addition, excluding

its Answer, Defendant has not filed any papers to dispose of Plaintiff’s action, such as a motion to

dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. As a result, there is no argument or evidence before the

Court suggesting that dismissal of this action without prejudice would result in any loss to Defendant of

a legal interest, claim, or argument that could be made in any future litigation. Thus, the Court

ORDERS that Plaintiff’s action is dismissed without prejudice, and VACATES the pretrial conference

scheduled for December 4, 2006. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2006

HON. NAPOLEON A. JONES, JR.

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge Bencivengo

 All Counsel of Record

Case 3:05-cv-00550-J-CAB Document 52 Filed 11/21/06 Page 2 of 2