Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01867-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Advanced Industrial Services, Inc.
Counter Claimant
C.L. Knox
Counter Claimant
Continental Labor Resources, Inc.
Counter Defendant
Bennie Merkley
Plaintiff

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENNIE MERKLEY, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL LABOR RESOURCES, 

INC.; C.L KNOX, INC. d/b/a 

ADVANCED INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, 

INC.; and DOES 1 through 50,

Defendants.

C.L. KNOX, INC. d/b/a ADVANCED 

INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Counter Claimant,

v.

CONTINENTAL LABOR RESOURCES, 

INC.,

Counter Defendant.

No. 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE 

DEFENDANT CONTINENTAL LABOR 

RESOURCES, INC. AND ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(Doc. No. 15)

On May 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and attempted to dismiss all claims 

brought in this action with prejudice as to defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc. (Doc. No. 

15.) Defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc., however, has previously filed an answer in the 

Case 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/30/16 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

action. (Doc. No. 9.) Accordingly, plaintiff could not voluntarily dismiss under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), but rather must voluntary dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2). Unlike a Rule 

41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2) motion for voluntary dismissal requires court 

approval. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 

1997).

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. Waller v. Fin. Corp. 

of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987); see also Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 

F.2d 143, 145–46 (9th Cir. 1982). “Legal prejudice” means “prejudice to some legal interest, 

some legal claim, some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97

(9th Cir. 1996). A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) normally is without prejudice, as explicitly 

stated in that rule. However, a dismissal with prejudice so that claims cannot be reasserted in 

another federal suit strengthens the conclusion that the dismissal causes no legal prejudice and is

not an abuse of discretion. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001). In this 

matter, defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc. will suffer no discernable legal prejudice, 

plaintiff represents that its claims against Continental Labor Resources, Inc. have settled, and 

plaintiff furthermore requests that the dismissal be with prejudice. The court therefore finds that 

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc. with prejudice 

is appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against defendant Continental Labor Resources, 

Inc. are dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Continental 

Labor Resources, Inc.’s status as a defendant in the action. However, this dismissal does not 

affect Continental Labor Resources, Inc.’s status as a counter defendant in this action.

Additionally, on October 25, 2016, the court dismissed with prejudice the only other 

named defendant in the action, C.L. Knox d/b/a Advanced Industrial Services, Inc. (Doc. No. 

45.) The dismissal, however, did not affect C.L. Knox’s status a counter claimant. (Id.) Because 

all defendants in the underlying complaint have now been dismissed, counter claimant C.L. Knox 

and counter defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc. are directed to file a joint stipulation 

dismissing the counterclaims if that is their intention or, alternatively, to show cause in writing 

Case 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/30/16 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

within thirty days as to why C.L. Knox’s counter claim against counter defendant Continental 

Labor Resources, Inc. (Doc. No. 6) should not now be dismissed.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

The court notes that in C.L. Knox’s counter claim against Continental Labor Resources, Inc.

only equitable indemnity, implied indemnity, apportionment and contribution, and declaratory 

relief are sought. (Doc. No. 6.)

Case 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT Document 46 Filed 11/30/16 Page 3 of 3