Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358/USCOURTS-cand-3_13-cv-04358-38/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 42:9601 CERCLA

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT 

TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(2) AS TO 

DEFENDANTS JOSEPH J. LEE, 

DECEDENT GRACE M. LEE, MOON S. 

LIM, AND JIEWON LIM; AND THE 

KENLOW CORPORATION, KEN 

LOWRY, FLOYD TAYLOR, AND THE 

ESTATE OF KATHLEEN N. TAYLOR 

TO THE EXTENT OF STATE FARM 

INSURANCE COVERAGE

Re: ECF No. 288

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for voluntary dismissal as to Defendants 

Joseph J. Lee, Decedent Grace M. Lee, Moon S. Lim, and Jiewon Lim with prejudice and as to 

Defendants the Kenlow Corporation, Ken Lowry, Floyd Taylor, and the Estate of Kathleen N. 

Taylor, to the extent of State Farm’s insurance coverage, with prejudice. ECF No. 288. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion. 

I. BACKGROUND

On June 1, 2011, Plaintiffs Ryan, Anne, and Reese Schaeffer (“Plaintiffs”) filed a lawsuit 

against various defendants, including Joseph J. Lee, Decedent Grace M. Lee, Moon S. Lim, and 

Jiewon Lim (the “Lee and Lim Defendants”), in Contra Costa County Superior Court alleging 

personal injury and environmental contamination. ECF No. 1. The action was then removed to 

this Court. Id. Plaintiffs assert claims for nuisance, trespass, negligence, ultrahazardous activity, 

waste, cost recovery under California’s Hazardous Substance Account Act, and for violations of 

Business and Professions Code §17200. Id. The Lee and Lim Defendants operated an on-site dry 

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 297 Filed 11/23/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cleaner at the Gregory Village Shopping Center that allegedly released harmful dry cleaning 

chemicals. Id. ¶ 9. 

On August 7, 2015, the Lee and Lim Defendants filed their motion for good faith 

settlement determination. ECF No. 276. On August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs submitted a joinder in 

support of the motion. ECF No. 281. The Plaintiffs and the Lee and Lim Defendants agreed, 

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, to a general release of all claims 

against Joseph J. Lee, decedent Grace M. Lee, Moon S. Lim, and Jiewon Lim, in exchange for a

settlement payment of $175,000 to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 277, Ex. A ¶ 4. The parties also agreed 

that the Plaintiffs would dismiss the claims as to the Kenlow Corporation, Ken Lowry, Floyd 

Taylor, and the Estate of Kathleen N. Taylor (the “Kenlow and Taylor Defendants”), to the extent 

of coverage available under State Farm insurance policies. Id. On September 11, 2015, the Court 

approved the motion for good faith settlement determination. ECF No. 286. 

On September 28, 2015, the parties filed the instant motion to voluntarily dismiss the case, 

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), with prejudice. ECF No. 288. The motion is unopposed. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs the voluntary dismissal of an action by the 

plaintiff. A plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of the parties to an action. 

See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 

(citations omitted). It is within the district court’s sound discretion to grant or deny a motion 

made under Rule 41(a)(2). Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980). “[A] 

district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal 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); Waller v. Financial Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir.1987). “Plain legal 

prejudice” means “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). The Court may dismiss 

with or without prejudice, but “[u]nless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 

paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2).

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 297 Filed 11/23/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs and the Lee and Lim Defendants jointly move to dismiss the action as to the Lee

and Lim Defendants with prejudice and the Kenlow and Taylor Defendants, to the extent of 

insurance coverage available under policies issued by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company 

and/or State Farm General Insurance Company, with prejudice. ECF No. 288. The parties also 

request that the settling parties “bear their own fees and costs as between the settling parties.” Id.

The Court must first consider, under Rule 41(a), whether dismissal of the Lee and Lim 

Defendants and the Kenlow and Taylor Defendants would result in legal prejudice to any other 

Defendants in this action. Per Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any oppositions to the joint motion were 

due no later than October 13, 2015. No Defendants filed an opposition. The Court concludes no 

Defendant will suffer plain legal prejudice as a result of their dismissal from the action with 

prejudice. See Lenches, 263 F.3d at 975. In exchange for settlement, Plaintiffs agreed to a release 

of all claims against the Lee and Lim Defendants and against the Kenlow and Taylor Defendants, 

to the extent of coverage under State Farm policies. ECF No. 277, Ex. A.

The parties also request that the Court grant the dismissal with prejudice and order the 

settling parties to bear their own fees and costs. ECF No. 288. The Court finds that dismissal 

with prejudice is appropriate and orders that the settling parties bear their own fees and costs.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss all 

claims against the Lee/Lim Defendants with prejudice and against the Kenlow and Taylor 

Defendants, only with respect to insurance coverage available under policies issued by State Farm 

Fire and Casualty Company and/or State Farm General Insurance Company, with prejudice. The 

settling parties are to bear their own fees and costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 23, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:13-cv-04358-JST Document 297 Filed 11/23/15 Page 3 of 3