Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02395/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02395-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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 - 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE

COMPANY, an Indiana corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

ORDER

vs.

NICEFORO HERRERA, individually and

doing business as ACUPULCO’S

PRODUCE MARKET; NICHOLAS M.

FINTZELBERG doing business as

MILNIK TRUST PROPERTIES; LUIS

BENITEZ; and JOHANNA BENITEZ, by

and through her guardian at litem, Luis

Benitez,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 44)

filed by American Economy Insurance Company (“American Economy”), and the Motion to

Dismiss Defendants Luis and Johanna Benitez without Prejudice (Doc. # 69) filed by

American Economy. 

On October 30, 2006, American Economy filed a Complaint in this matter seeking

declaratory relief and rescission (Doc. # 1). 

On September 13, 2007, American Economy filed the Motion for Partial Summary

Judgment. No party filed an opposition to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 

On January 16, 2008, Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo held a mandatory

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 70 Filed 04/17/08 Page 1 of 3
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 - 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

settlement conference and issued an order following the mandatory settlement conference

(Doc. # 63). The order states that Defendants Herrera and Fintzelberg appeared with counsel,

and that Defendant Benitez failed to appear on his own behalf and as guardian ad litem for

Defendant Johanna Benitez. The order states that the “parties who were present resolved the

matter on the following terms. Plaintiff American Economy will dismiss its claim with

prejudice against Defendant Fintzelberg . . . . Plaintiff American Economy and Defendant

Herrera will submit a joint motion for a consent judgment of rescission.” Id. 

On January 18, 2008, American Economy and Defendant Fintzelberg filed a joint 

motion to dismiss with prejudice the complaint against Nicholas Fintzelberg, doing business

as Milnik Trust Properties (Doc. # 64). On January 23, 2008, this Court issued an order

granting the joint motion to dismiss and dismissing all claims against Defendant Fintzelberg

with prejudice. 

American Economy and Defendant Herrera have not yet filed the joint motion for a

consent judgment of rescission pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s January 16, 2008 order.

On March 14, 2008, American Economy filed the Motion to Dismiss Defendants Luis

and Johanna Benitez without Prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. American Economy requests that the Benitezes be dismissed from this case on

grounds that American Economy does not need to proceed against them because they have not

filed a wrongful death action in this case, and the statute of limitations for wrongful death

actions has passed. American Economy states that it moves for voluntary dismissal “[s]ince

a stipulation is impossible given the Benitezes’ unknown whereabouts.” Mot. to Dismiss, p.

2. No party filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. 

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the voluntary dismissal of

an action in federal court. Rule 41(a)(2) provides that unless a plaintiff files a notice of

dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary

judgment, or the parties stipulate to the dismissal of the action, “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 to grant or deny a motion pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 70 Filed 04/17/08 Page 2 of 3
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 - 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

“within the sound discretion of the trial court and may be reviewed only for abuse of that

discretion.” Id. A court should grant a Rule 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary dismissal unless

the defendant will “suffer clear legal prejudice, other than the prospect of a subsequent suit on

the same facts.” Phillips v. Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, 874 F.2d 984, 986 (9th Cir. 1989).

The Ninth Circuit interprets “legal prejudice” to mean “prejudice to some legal interest, some

legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96

(9th Cir. 1996).

No party asserts that voluntary dismissal will result in legal prejudice. The Court

concludes that voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure will not result in “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal

argument.” See Westlands Water Dist., 100 F.3d at 96. The Court will grant the Motion to

Dismiss filed by American Economy.

In light of the Court’s dismissal of all claims against Defendants Fintzelberg and the

Benitezes, and the resolution of the matter between American Economy and Defendent Herrera

as indicated in the Magistrate Judge’s January 16, 2008 order, the Court will deny the Motion

for Partial Summary Judgment without prejudice. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 

44) is DENIED without prejudice. It is further ordered that the Motion to Dismiss

Defendants Luis and Johanna Benitez without Prejudice (Doc. # 69) is GRANTED. All

claims against Defendants Luis and Johanna Benitez are DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DATED: April 17, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 70 Filed 04/17/08 Page 3 of 3