Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01980/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01980-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CECILLE Q. PAED, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-01980 JSW

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST

TO DISMISS

Now before the Court is the request by Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss this case without

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The Court has considered the parties’

papers relevant legal authority, and the record in this case.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 provides, in relevant part, that “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 Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the District

Court.” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). In

exercising its discretion, the Court “must consider whether the defendant will suffer some plain

legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Id. 

In light of the Court’s Order on the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), Wells Fargo urges that the dismissal be with prejudice on all of

Plaintiffs’ claims except the one under California Civil Code section 2923.5. The Court notes

that the Order on the motion to dismiss left open the possibility of providing leave to amend 

Case 4:15-cv-01980-JSW Document 25 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiffs’ negligence claim. Moreover, depending upon whether Plaintiffs could allege claims

for violation of section 2923.5 or a negligence claim, they may be able to state a claim for

violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 as well. Therefore, the

Court finds that the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ negligence claim and Section 17200 claim should be

without prejudice as well. Accordingly, Court HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to

voluntarily dismiss this action. However, based on the Court’s Order on the motion to dismiss,

the Court dismisses Plaintiffs’ claim pursuant to California Civil Code section 2923.55 and their

claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with prejudice. The

remainder of Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-01980-JSW Document 25 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 2