Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00385/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00385-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jaime Marquez
Defendant
Ronald Moore
Plaintiff
Punjab Auto Repair
Defendant
Maghar Singh
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

RONALD MOORE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JAIME MARQUEZ, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 1:15-cv-00385-SAB 

ORDER DISMISSINGWITH PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT JAIME MARQUEZ ONLY 

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(2) 

(ECF No. 39) 

 On October 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement as to Defendant Jaime 

Marquez only. (ECF No. 33). On November 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for the dismissal 

of Defendant Marquez only from the action. (ECF No. 39). In the request for dismissal of 

Defendant Marquez, Plaintiff indicates that Defendant Marquez agreed to electronically sign a 

joint stipulation, but Defendant Maghar Singh dba Punjab Auto Repair’s objected to dismiss 

Defendant Marquez. (ECF No. 39). 

 Under Rule 41, a Plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order by filing a notice 

of dismissal before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) permits a plaintiff to dismiss 

an action without prejudice at any time pursuant to a court order and on terms that the court 

considers proper. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the 

sound discretion of the District Court. Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Inc., 679 F.2d 

143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Under Rule 41(a)(2), there are three separate determinations for the 

Case 1:15-cv-00385-SAB Document 41 Filed 12/02/15 Page 1 of 2
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

court to 

without p

Peralta C

A

he will s

Legal pre

Westland

not resul

plaintiff m

H

order is r

and all of

have not

Defendan

Defendan

P

Defendan

Marquez

A

WITH PR

IT IS SO

Dated: 

make: (1) w

prejudice; an

Community C

A court shoul

uffer legal p

ejudice mean

ds Water Dis

lt because th

may gain a t

Here, Defend

required to d

f the parties 

t been any 

nt Singh wa

nt Marquez f

laintiff and 

nt Singh has

z from this ac

Accordingly, 

REJUDICE 

O ORDERED

 Decembe

whether to 

nd (3) what 

College Dist

ld grant a m

prejudice as 

ns “prejudic

st. v. United 

he dispute r

tactical adva

dant Singh d

dismiss Defe

to the action

counterclai

as provided 

from this act

Defendant 

s not shown 

ction. 

IT IS HE

from this ac

D. 

er 2, 2015

allow dismi

terms and c

t., 227 F.R.D

motion for vo

a result. Sm

ce to some le

States, 100 

remains unr

antage by the

id not stipul

endant Marq

n have not st

ims, cross 

with an op

tion by Nove

Marquez ha

that he will

REBY ORD

ction pursuan

 

2 

issal; (2) w

conditions, i

D. 538, 539 (N

luntary dism

mith v. Lenc

egal interest,

F.3d 972, 9

resolved, the

e dismissal. 

late to the di

quez because

tipulated to h

claims or t

pportunity to

ember 30, 20

ave reached

l suffer any 

DERED tha

nt to Federal

UNITE

whether the d

if any, shou

(N.D. Cal. 20

missal unless

ches, 263 F.

, some legal 

75 (9th Cir. 

ere is a thre

Smith, 263 

ismissal of D

e Defendant 

his dismissa

third-party c

o file an op

015. No opp

d a settleme

prejudice by

at Defendan

l Rule of Civ

ED STATES

dismissal sh

uld be impos

005). 

s the defenda

.3d 972, 975

 claim, some

2001). Leg

eat of futur

F.3d at 976.

Defendant M

Marquez ha

al. The Cour

claims filed

pposition to 

position has 

nt agreemen

y the dismis

nt Marquez 

vil Procedure

S MAGISTR

hould be wi

sed. William

ant can show

5 (9th Cir. 2

e legal argum

gal prejudice

e litigation, 

. 

Marquez. A 

as filed an an

rt notes that 

d in this m

the dismiss

been filed. 

nt in this ac

ssal of Defen

is DISMIS

e 41(a)(2). 

RATE JUDG

ith or 

ms v. 

w that 

2001). 

ment. 

e does 

or a 

court 

nswer 

there 

matter. 

sal of 

ction. 

ndant 

SSED 

GE 

Case 1:15-cv-00385-SAB Document 41 Filed 12/02/15 Page 2 of 2