Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00134/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00134-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANET J. STURKEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et 

al.

Defendant.

No. 2:15-cv-00134-MCE-CKD

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Janet J. Sturkey’s unopposed Request for 

Dismissal (ECF No. 9). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a)(2)1 provides:

Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be 

dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on 

terms that the court considers proper. If a defendant has 

pleaded a counterclaim before being served with the 

plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over 

the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain 

pending for independent adjudication. Unless the order 

states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is 

without prejudice.

“[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.” Waller v. Fin. Corp. of 

America, 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & 

 1

 All subsequent references to “Rule” or “Rules” are to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Case 2:15-cv-00134-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/03/15 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

Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145-46 (9th Cir. 1982). The Ninth Circuit has clarified that 

“legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal 

argument.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Westlands 

Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). Further, mere “uncertainty 

because a dispute remains unresolved” does not result in plain legal prejudice; nor does 

uncertainty due to the threat of future litigation. Id. Finally, plain legal prejudice does not 

result merely because a defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in 

another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage through dismissal. 

Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145.

Defendants have not filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s Request, or otherwise 

established that they will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result of dismissal. 

Accordingly, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Plaintiff’s Request for Dismissal is hereby 

GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice as to all parties and all causes 

of action. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 4) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 2, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00134-MCE-CKD Document 11 Filed 04/03/15 Page 2 of 2