Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01524-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

**E-Filed 1/16/2007**

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SYNAPSIS, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION FOR

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

[re: docket no. 194]

EVERGREEN DATA SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

 Counter-Claimants,

v.

WILLIAM AKEL, et al.,

 Counter-Defendants.

 

On November 28, 2006, counter-claimants Evergreen Data Systems, Inc.; Bruce R.

McAllister; and Steven J. DeMartini (collectively “Counter-Claimants”) moved for voluntary

dismissal with prejudice of their counter-claim against counter-defendant William Akel (“Akel”). 

Akel filed opposition to the motion on December 29, 2006. 

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 210 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

The Court concludes that it may resolve this matter without oral argument. See Civ. L.R.

7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Counter-Claimants state that negotiations between themselves and Akel to stipulate to

dismissal of the counterclaim took place in November, 2006. According to Counter-Claimants,

these negotiations broke down at the end of that month, leading them to file the instant motion. 

Counter-Claimants state that they bring this motion for the economic reason that the anticipated

legal costs of continuing their action against Akel are greater than the amount of money they

believe that they could collect from Akel. Counter-Claimants state that their “good faith decision

to dismiss Mr. Akel is [] supported by [the] recent discovery that any victory [against] him will

be hollow.” Motion 3. Counter-Claimants wish to proceed with their counterclaim against only

counter-defendant Synapsis, LLC. 

Akel filed an amended answer to the counter-claim on October 27, 2006, but has not filed

a motion for summary judgment. Akel’s opposition to the motion, filed on December 29, 2006,

states that “[i]n spirit, CD-Akel has no reason to object to this Court dismissing CD-Akel from

this action so long as the dismissal is with prejudice. What defendant ever desires to be part of a

lawsuit?” Opposition 10. Akel apparently filed opposition because of his sense that CounterClaimants had brought meritless claims against him and his desire for the Court to perform a

thorough review of the facts and law before granting the motion. Opposition 10. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

 Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2) provides that after the filing of a reply and without a

stipulation, an action may be voluntarily dismissed only “upon order of the court and upon such

terms and conditions as the court deems proper.” The provisions of Rule 41 apply equally to

counterclaims. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(c). “A voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule

41(a)(1) has the same effect as a voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2).” 

Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).

III. DISCUSSION

The Court has considered the equities of a voluntary dismissal with prejudice and

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 210 Filed 01/16/07 Page 2 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

concludes that such a dismissal is in the best interests of all parties. There is no evidence that the

Counter-Claimants are trying to avoid an adverse result or otherwise gain an unfair advantage

over Akel; their request to dismiss the action with prejudice defeats any such suggestion. 

Another court in this district has held that “[i]n exercising its discretion, the Court must

make three separate determinations: (1) whether to allow the dismissal at all; (2) whether the

dismissal should be with or without prejudice; and (3) what terms and conditions, if any, should

be imposed.” Burnette v. Godshall, 828 F.Supp. 1439, 1443 (N.D.Cal. 1993) (citation omitted). 

The Court does not have an adequate record before it to determine what costs, if any, it should

impose upon Counter-Claimants. Accordingly, if Akel seeks to recover costs and/or attorney’s

fees, he must do so by means of a noticed motion within thirty days of the issuance of this order. 

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefor appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for voluntary

dismissal with prejudice is GRANTED. The Counter-Claim is dismissed as to CounterDefendant Akel. 

Dated: January 16, 2007

 

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 210 Filed 01/16/07 Page 3 of 4
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

Case No. C 05-01524 JF (RS)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

(JFLC1)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

William Shibly Akel wmakel@counterstrike.com 

Daniel C. DeCarlo decarlo@lbbslaw.com, kkim@lbbslaw.com; pink@lbbslaw.com;

creyes@lbbslaw.com 

Manuel Albert Martinez MMartinez@steinlubin.com, msaephan@steinlubin.com 

Jonathan S. Pink pink@lbbslaw.com, creyes@lbbslaw.com 

Michael Navid Radparvar radparvar@lbbslaw.com, 

Jeffrey F. Sax jsax@sswesq.com 

Notice will be delivered by other means to: 

H Joseph Nourmand 

H Joseph Nourmand Law Offices

660 S. Figueroa Street

24th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90017

Case 5:05-cv-01524-JF Document 210 Filed 01/16/07 Page 4 of 4