Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01638/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01638-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 152
Nature of Suit: Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans
Cause of Action: 20:1080 Student Loan Recovery

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

YOLANDA JIMENEZ,

 Defendant.

1:15-cv-1638-LJO-SAB

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (Doc. 9)

Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, LLP (“Plaintiff”), on behalf of the United States of America

(specifically, the Department of Education (“DOE”)), brings this suit to collect on Defendant Yolanda 

Jimenez’s outstanding debt from a DOE-issued student loan. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff previously dismissed 

voluntarily an identical lawsuit against Defendant because she could not be located and therefore 

Plaintiff could not effectuate service on her. Doc. 9 at 2-3. Plaintiff moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)

(“Rule 41(a)(2)”) to dismiss voluntarily this case without prejudice because the firm again is unable to 

effectuate service on Defendant. Id.1

Rule 41(a)(2) provides that, “[e]xcept as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of this 

rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's instance save upon order of the court and upon 

such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” The Rule further provides that “[u]nless otherwise 

specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without prejudice.” Id. “When ruling on a 

motion to dismiss without prejudice [under Rule 41(a)(2)], the district court must determine whether the 

 

1 The Court directed Irsfeld, Irsfeld & Younger, LLP, to provide the Court with documentation of its authority to bring this 

case on behalf of the United States. See Doc. 10. The firm timely complied with the directive. See Doc. 11; see also 34 

C.F.R. § 30.60.

Case 1:15-cv-01638-LJO-SAB Document 12 Filed 04/11/16 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

2

defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.” Westlands Water Dist. v. 

United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). “Legal prejudice” means “prejudice to 

some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. at 97.

Plaintiff argues that, because Defendant has never been served with either of Plaintiff’s two 

lawsuits against her, she most likely is unaware of them and therefore could not suffer legal prejudice if 

this case is dismissed without prejudice. The Court agrees. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without

prejudice this entire case. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 11, 2016 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01638-LJO-SAB Document 12 Filed 04/11/16 Page 2 of 2