Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-4_19-cv-00290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

Greg Moore, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v. 

Sean Garnand, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-19-00290-TUC-RM (LAB)

ORDER 

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss claims and parties 

filed on October 10, 2019. (Doc. 27)

This action arises out of the Tucson Police Department’s investigation of a fire 

that occurred on June 8, 2017. (Doc. 1) The plaintiffs allege their constitutional rights 

were violated by the defendants Detective Sean Garand and Sergeant Dain Salisbury 

particularly as to their conduct in procuring and executing search warrants on June 9, 

2017 and June 14, 2017. (Doc. 1)

In the pending motion, the plaintiffs seek to dismiss from the complaint Claims 

Six, Seven, and Nine with prejudice; dismiss from the complaint the defendants Jane 

Doe Garnand, Jane Doe Salisbury, Rebecca Lopez and spouse, Kimberly Frie and 

spouse, and Richard Radinsky and spouse; and dismiss all claims asserted by the 

plaintiffs Southwest Nonprofit Housing Corp., J.C. Moore Grandchildren’s Trust, and 

ESMJ Partners. 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 38 Filed 10/30/19 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

The defendants filed a response to the motion on October 23, 2019. (Doc. 33) 

They have no objection to the plaintiffs’ request to dismiss with prejudice Claims Six, 

Seven, and Nine. Id. They argue any dismissal of defendants from Claim Eight 

should be with prejudice because “(a) the present Complaint represents the Moores’ 

fourth ‘bite at the apple’; and (b) the Moores never had a good faith legal basis for 

bringing the Eighth Claim in the first instance.” (Doc. 33, p. 2) 

Where a stipulation to dismiss by all appearing parties is not filed, a plaintiff may 

cause claims or parties to be dismissed after an answer has been filed only with leave 

of court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 

1997) (“The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his 

claims . . . .”). “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under 

Rule 41(a)(2) 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). “Legal prejudice 

means prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.” Id. 

(punctuation modified) “[U]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved or 

because the threat of future litigation causes uncertainty does not result in plain legal 

prejudice.” Id. 

The court finds that while the defendants prefer that the dismissal of defendants 

from Claim Eight be with prejudice, they have not alleged that they will suffer any 

legal prejudice if the motion is granted and the dismissal is without prejudice. 

For good cause shown,

IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss claims and parties filed on 

October 10, 2019 is GRANTED. (Doc. 27)

1. The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Claims are dismissed with prejudice;

2. All Defendants, except Defendants Sean Garnand and Dain Salisbury, are 

dismissed from the case, including from the Eighth Claim;

3. All Plaintiffs, except Greg Moore and Patricia Moore, are dismissed from 

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 38 Filed 10/30/19 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

the case.

The remaining Claims for adjudication are the First through Fifth Claims, and 

the Eighth Claim, asserted by the Moores against Defendants Garnand and Salisbury. 

Dated this 30th day of October, 2019.

Case 4:19-cv-00290-RM-MAA Document 38 Filed 10/30/19 Page 3 of 3