Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02399/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02399-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: Americans with Disabilities 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 - 06cv2399 WQH (AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Chris Kohler,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2399 WQH (AJB)

ORDER

vs.

MIRA MESA MARKETPLACE WEST,

LLC; NEW ALBERTSON’S, INC. dba

ALBERTSON’S-SAVON # 6770;

LONGS DRUG STORE # 524;

STARBUCKS CORPORATION dba

STARBUCKS COFFEE # 5753; JAMBA

JUICE COMPANY dba JAMBA JUICE #

51; SWH CORPORATION dba MIMI’S

CAFÉ # 0050; EXTREME ICECREAM,

LLC dba COLD STONE CREAMERY;

COLD STONE CREAMERY, INC.;

PICK UP STIX, INC. dba PICK UP STIX

MIRA MESA # 7219; GREAT PROMO,

LLC dba TOGO’S MIRA MESA; FILI

ENTERPRISES, INC. dba DAPHNE’S

GREEK CAFÉ; FEDEX KINKO’S

OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.

dba FEDEX KINKO’S,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Dismiss his

Lawsuit without Prejudice.” (Doc. # 85). 

Case 3:06-cv-02399-WQH-AJB Document 93 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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 - 06cv2399 WQH (AJB)

Background

On October 30, 2006, Plaintiff Chris Kohler (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in 

federal court against Mira Mesa Market Place West, LLC (“Marketplace”), New

Albertson’s, Inc., Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (“Longs”), Starbucks Corporation

(“Starbucks”), Jamba Juice Company (“Jamba Juice”), SWH Corporation, Extreme

IceCream, LLC, Cold Stone Creamery, Inc., Pick Up Stix, Inc., Great Promo, LLC, Fili

Enterprises, Inc., Fedex Kinko’s Office and Print Services, Inc. (“Kinko’s”) (Doc. # 1). 

The Complaint alleges violations of (1) Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12182, 12183, (2) the Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 54,

(3) the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 51, and (4) the California Health and

Safety Code § 19955. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages. 

On June 4, 2007, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state law claims, brought pursuant to the Disabled Persons Act, the Unruh Civil

Rights Act and the California Health and Safety Code. The Court dismissed all of

Plaintiff’s state law claims without prejudice. The Court only retained jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s federal claims brought pursuant to the ADA (Doc. # 77). 

The following defendants stipulated to the voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal

claims: Extreme IceCream, LLC (Doc. # 71), Great Promo, LLC (Doc. # 72), Pick Up

Stix, Inc. (Doc. # 81), and SWH Corporation (Doc. # 86).

On September 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed the “Motion for Leave of Court to Dismiss

his Lawsuit without Prejudice” (“Motion for Voluntary Dismissal”). Plaintiff moves to

dismiss his federal claims without prejudice. On November 5, 2007, Starbucks and

Kinko’s filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 87), which

Marketplace and Longs joined (Doc. # 88, 90). On November 5, 2007, Jamba Juice filed a

Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 89), which Longs joined (Doc. #

91). On November 9, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Reply (Doc. # 92). 

Case 3:06-cv-02399-WQH-AJB Document 93 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Plaintiff's Reply states: "[I]f the Court is inclined to grant plaintiffs request [to dismiss this

action without prejudice] (but award the defense fees) [Plaintiff] would ask for the opportunity to

withdraw that request. Any desire he has to maintain consistent ruling is trumped by his desire to

avoid paying the defense's gold-plated fee demands." Reply, p. 3-4. 

- 3 - 06cv2399 WQH (AJB)

Discussion

Plaintiff emphasizes that this Court’s decision to decline to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims left Plaintiff with “two (2) separate cases, one

in federal court (encompassing his ADA claims), and one in state court (encompassing his

state claims),” and that “[o]bviously, such piecemeal litigation is onerous not only on

plaintiff (both in time and expenses), but on the courts as well (for the same reasons).” 

Pltf’s Mot. to Dismiss, p. 4. Plaintiff contends that dismissal without prejudice “is the best

action not only for [Plaintiff’s] own legal interests, but that such dismissal would also meet

the underlying objective of most sensibly accommodating the values of economy,

convenience, fairness and comity.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Plaintiff therefore

moves the Court to dismiss his federal claims without prejudice. 

Defendants contend that they have already incurred substantial expense and effort

litigating the action in federal court, and that they are presently entitled to summary

judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA claims. Defendants also contend that dismissal without

prejudice will subject them to increased liability for attorneys’ fees because Plaintiff can refile in state court and under California law (unlike federal law), courts apply the catalyst

theory to determine which party prevailed for purposes of attorneys’ fees and have

discretion to apportion attorneys fees. Defendants therefore contend that they will suffer

clear legal prejudice if the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. 

Defendants contend that if the Court grants the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, it either

should be with prejudice or the Court should stay the action to allow Defendants to file a

motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA claims. Defendants contend that if the

Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice, Plaintiff should be ordered to

reimburse defendants for attorneys' fees and costs relating to the federal action.1

 

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

Case 3:06-cv-02399-WQH-AJB Document 93 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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

- 4 - 06cv2399 WQH (AJB)

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). “Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this

paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Id. The decision to grant or deny a motion pursuant to

Rule 41(a)(2) is "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 without

prejudice 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). In the Ninth Circuit, legal prejudice results

when a defendant is deprived of a federal forum, the right to a jury trial, or a statute of

limitations defense. Id. Legal prejudice, however, does "not result simply when defendant

faces the prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some tactical

advantage." Hamilton v. Firestone, 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Furthermore, "the

inconvenience of defending another lawsuit or the fact that the defendant has already begun

trial preparations does not constitute prejudice." In re Lowenschuss, 67 F.3d 1394, 1400-01

(9th Cir. 1995).

Pursuant to Rule 41(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[i]f a plaintiff who

previously dismissed an action in any court files an action based on or including the same

claim against the same defendant, the court: (1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of

the costs of the previous action; and (2) may stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has

complied.” Fed. R. Civ. P. § 41(d). In deciding whether to award costs and attorneys’ fees,

courts consider any excessive and duplicative expense of a subsequent litigation, the effort

and expense incurred in preparation for trial, the extent to which the litigation has

progressed and the plaintiff’s diligence in moving to dismiss. Williams v. Peralta, 227

F.R.D. 538, 540 (N.D. Cal. 2005); see also 8-4 Moore’s Federal Practice, Civil §

Case 3:06-cv-02399-WQH-AJB Document 93 Filed 12/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 - 06cv2399 WQH (AJB)

41.40(10)(d) (2005). A court’s imposition of costs is discretionary. Westlands Water Dist.,

100 F.3d at 97. 

Defendants’ argument that voluntary dismissal will result in legal prejudice because

they have incurred substantial expense and effort litigating the action in federal court is

foreclosed by Ninth Circuit authority. See Westlands Water Dist., 100 F. 3d at 97.

Defendants will not be deprived of a statute of limitations defense, right to jury trial or

federal forum because Defendants do not allege a statute of limitations defense and do not

assert that their right to a jury trial or federal forum will be impaired if the Court grants the

Motion for Voluntary Dismissal. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that

voluntary dismissal without prejudice is appropriate because Defendants will not suffer

clear legal prejudice.

The Court declines to exercise its discretion to award Defendants fees and costs

because Plaintiff was not dilatory in filing the Motion, which was filed shortly after the

Court’s Order declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law

claims and at a relatively early stage of the proceedings. 

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS “Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Dismiss his Lawsuit 

without Prejudice.” (Doc. # 85). This lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DATED: December 19, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02399-WQH-AJB Document 93 Filed 12/19/07 Page 5 of 5