Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01751/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01751-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas D. Grabinski and Deanne

Grabinski, husband and wife, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

National Union Fire Insurance Company

of Pittsburgh, PA, a Pennsylvania

corporation, Steven Kent, a single man,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.CV 04-01751-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Dkt.#79),

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt#81), and Defendants’ Motion for Summary

Disposition of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.#104). After reviewing the papers,

the Court issues the following Order. 

I. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss

Apparently, Plaintiffs have decided that it would be in their best interest to withdraw their

claims and ask this Court to grant their motion to dismiss without prejudice. (Dkt.#79)

Defendants call this motion “a transparent attempt to obtain the litigation stay the Court

previously denied” and urge that this Court should only grant a dismissal if it is with

prejudice, or alternatively if the Court grants Defendants their reasonable costs and attorneys

fees. (Dkt.#103 at 1-2) Defendants have already apparently incurred a great deal of legal

Case 2:04-cv-01751-MHM Document 108 Filed 06/11/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

expenses preparing their motion for summary judgment and conducting discovery in this

case. (Dkt.#103 at 14-15)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) explains that “an action may be dismissed at the

plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. The decision

to grant or deny a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is not mandatory but is within the

Court’s discretion. Stevedoring Serv. v. Armilla Int’l, B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir.

1989). A plaintiff may dismiss an action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) “so long as

the defendant will not be prejudiced.” Id. Prejudice includes “the defendant’s effort and

expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the

plaintiff in prosecuting the action, . . . and the fact that a motion for summary judgment has

been filed by the defendant.” Ratkovich v. Smith Kline, 951 F.2d 155, 158 (7th Cir. 1991).

Here, dismissal without prejudice appears inappropriate. As explained below, Defendants

have fully briefed a motion for summary judgment that demonstrates that they are entitled

to judgment; granting Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss would enable Plaintiffs to escape from

this adverse ruling. Moreover, Plaintiffs appear to be using Rule 41(a)(2) to avoid the

consequence of their failure to diligently pursue the case. For these reasons, Plaintiffs’

Motion to Dismiss is denied. 

II. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ abuse of process claim, the sole

remaining claim in this litigation. (Dkt.#81) In essence, they argue that Grabinski has not

established a genuine issue of material fact precluding dismissal of his abuse of process

claims against Defendants because Defendants did not disobey a court order and because

Grabinski can present no facts establishing an improper motive. (Dkt.#81 at 11-12)

Defendants further argue that the alleged improper statements of National Union’s counsel

at trial fail both as a matter of law and for lack of evidentiary support. (Dkt.#81 at 13) They

also argue that Grabinski’s allegations regarding National Union’s deposition of Grabinski

fail as a matter of law. (Dkt. #81 at 14) This motion was filed on November 26, 2008.

(Dkt.#81)

Case 2:04-cv-01751-MHM Document 108 Filed 06/11/09 Page 2 of 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

- 3 -

Plaintiffs failed to respond to this motion. On January 1, 2009, Defendants filed a Motion

for Summary Disposition of Its Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt.#104) Plaintiffs did

not respond to this motion either, despite Defendants’ identification therein of Local Rule of

Civil Procedure 7.2(I), which provides that if “counsel does not serve and file the required

answering memoranda . . . such noncompliance may be deemed a consent to the denial or

granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily.” The Ninth

Circuit has approved of this rule in Ching v. Lewis, 963 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992).

This rule is discretionary, not mandatory; however, where, as here, it appears that there

is no genuine issue of material fact, the law and facts Defendants cite in their motion appear

to support judgment in their favor, and Plaintiffs have failed to respond to Defendants’

motion, the Court finds that it is appropriate to grant Defendants Motion for Summary

Judgment.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (Dkt.#79).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

(Dkt.#81). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Disposition

of its Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt.#104). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk to enter judgment accordingly. 

DATED this 10th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:04-cv-01751-MHM Document 108 Filed 06/11/09 Page 3 of 3