Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00156-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD BUCKNER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND )

AND COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

)

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION(S) )

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0156 AWI SMS

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT

AMERIPRIDE, DEFENDANT

WASHING, AND DEFENDANT

SPRINGFIELD

[Document #118]

This action arises out of an accident in which Plaintiff Donald Bucker (“Buckner”) was

injured when his lab coat caught on fire, resulting in Buckner being severely burned. Buckner

sues VF Imagewear Inc., named in the complaint as Bulwark Protective Apparel (“VF

Imagewear”), Ameripride Uniform Service (“Ameripride”), Springfield LLC. (“Springfield”),

and, Washing Systems LLC (“Washing”).

In April 2006, Ameripride, Sprngfield, and Washing filed motions for a determination of

good faith settlement. VF Imagewear opposed the other defendants’ motions. Buckner filed

statements in support of Springfield’s, Ameripride’s and Washing’s motions for a determination

of good faith settlement. On May 8, 2006, the court held a hearing. On May 12, 2006, the

court granted Springfield’s, Ameripride’s and Washing’s motions for a determination of good

faith settlement. The court ordered Buckner to file papers to dismiss Springfield, Ameripride,

and Washing within twenty days.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 121 Filed 06/06/06 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

On June 1, 2006, Buckner filed a request to dismiss Springfield, Ameripride, and

Washing from this action in light of the court’s finding of a good faith settlement.

 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

(1) By Plaintiff; by Stipulation. . . . an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff

without order of court (I) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service

by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment,

whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all

parties who have appeared . . . . 

(2) By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of

this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's insistence save upon

order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.

Rule 42(a)(2) allows the court to grant a plaintiff’s dismissal motion with appropriate terms and

conditions to protect the defendant from prejudice. U.S. ex rel., Sequoia Orange Co. v.

Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9 Cir. 1988). A motion under Rule 42(a)(2) th

“is addressed to the district court’s sound discretion and the court’s order will not be disturbed

unless the court has abused its discretion.” Stevedoring Services of America v. Armilla

International B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1989). In ruling on a motion for voluntary

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), the district court must consider whether the dismissal will result in

some plain legal prejudice to the defendant. Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679

F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir.1982). Legal prejudice requires “prejudice to some legal interest, some

legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97

(9th Cir.1996). For the reasons cited in the court’s May 12, 2006 order, the court finds that no

legal prejudice will result if the court grants Buckner’s Rule 41(a)(2) request and dismisses

Ameripride, Washing, and Springfield from this action.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Buckner’s request for dismissal with prejudice of certain defendants is GRANTED; and

2. Ameripride, Washing, and Springfield are DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 121 Filed 06/06/06 Page 2 of 2