Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01867/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01867-6/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 

INSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.,

Counter Claimant,

v.

CONTINENTAL LABOR RESOURCES, 

INC.,

Counter Defendant.

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

ORDER DISMISSING WITH PREJUDICE

CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT C.L 

KNOX, INC. d/b/a ADVANCED 

INDUSTRIAL SERVICES

(Doc. No. 44)

On October 24, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of settlement with defendant C.L. Knox, Inc. 

d/b/a Advanced Industrial Services (“C.L. Knox”) and a request for voluntary dismissal of 

defendant C.L. Knox from this action with prejudice. (Doc. No. 44.) Defendant C.L. Knox has 

Case 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT Document 45 Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 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

2

previously filed an answer in the action and counterclaim against defendant Continental Labor 

Resources, Inc. (Doc. No. 6.) Accordingly, plaintiff may no longer voluntarily dismiss under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), but must file a motion for voluntary dismissal under 

Rule 41(a)(2). Unlike a Rule 41(a)(1) notice of dismissal, a Rule 41(a)(2) motion 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 C.L. Knox will suffer no discernable legal prejudice, plaintiff represents that its 

claims against C.L. Knox have been settled, and plaintiff furthermore requests that the dismissal 

of those claims be with prejudice. 

The court therefore finds that dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant C.L. Knox 

with prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against defendant C.L. Knox are 

dismissed with prejudice and the Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate C.L. Knox’s status as 

a defendant in the action. This dismissal does not affect C.L. Knox’s status as a counter claimant 

against counter defendant Continental Labor Resources, Inc.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 25, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01867-DAD-JLT Document 45 Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 2