Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01773-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ford Motor Company
Defendant
Robert Santos
Defendant
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp.
Defendant
TRW Automotive Inc.
Defendant
TRW Automotive U.S. LLC
Defendant
TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Inc.
Defendant
Tracy Yu-Santos
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TRACY YU-SANTOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, TRW )

AUTOMOTIVE HOLDINGS COPP., )

TRW AUTOMOTIVE INC., TRW )

AUTOMOTIVE U.S. LLC, TRW )

VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS INC., )

ROBERT SANTOS, and DOES 1 )

through 10, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-1773 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

DISMISS DEFENDANT FORD

MOTOR COMPANY WITH

PREJUDICE

(Document #40)

BACKGROUND

This wrongful death action arises from the single vehicle rollover of a 1998 Ford

Explorer on December 25, 2004. Christopher Ryan Miranda was driving the Ford Explorer

Southbound on Interstate 5 when he lost control of the vehicle and it overturned. Of the five

passengers in the vehicle, four were ejected and killed, including Plaintiff’s two children, Keilan

Tito Santos and Tia Leilani Santos. 

On December 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Plaintiff sues Defendant

Ford Motor Company (“Defendant Ford”) for defective design and manufacture of the Ford

Explorer. Plaintiff sues Defendant TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation, Defendant TRW

Automotive Inc., Defendant TRW Automotive U.S. LLC, and Defendant TRW Vehicle Safety

Systems Inc. (“TRW Defendants”) for defective design and manufacture of the safety restraint

belts. The amended complaint states that Defendant Robert Santos is named as a Defendant

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 04/22/08 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

because he is the father of Keilan Tito Santos and Tia Leilani Santos and is also their heir. The

amended complaint alleges that Defendant Robert Santos “is a party whose interests are so united

with those of Plaintiff that Defendant [Robert Santos] is a proper plaintiff.” 

 On April 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Defendant Ford with prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in light of a settlement

agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant Ford. Along with the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff

filed an application for an order shortening time for a hearing on Plaintiff’s motion.

On April 4, 2008, the court granted Plaintiff's application for an order shortening time. 

The court ordered any Defendant opposing Plaintiff's motion to file an opposition to Defendant

Ford’s dismissal by 4:00 p.m. on Monday, April 14, 2008. The court set a hearing on Plaintiff's

motion for 1:30 p.m. on Monday, April 21, 2008.

No Defendant or any other party filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss

Defendant Ford. The court held a hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Monday, April 21, 2008, and no

Defendant appeared to oppose the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part:

(1) By Plaintiff; by Stipulation. . . . an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff

without order of court (i) by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service

by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment,

whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all

parties who have appeared in the action. . . . 

(2) By Order of Court. Except as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision of

this rule, an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff's insistence save upon

order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.

 The purpose behind Rule 41 is to protect defendants from vexatious plaintiffs. U.S. ex rel.,

Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139, 1145 (9 Cir. 1988) (citing th

Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 397 (1990)). The court should grant a motion

for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer

some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 04/22/08 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

Cir. 2001). A motion under Rule 41(a)(2) “is addressed to the district court’s sound discretion

and the court’s order will not be disturbed unless the court has abused its discretion.” 

Stevedoring Services of America v. Armilla International B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9 Cir.1989). th

In ruling on a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), the district court must

consider whether the dismissal will result in some plain legal prejudice to the defendant.

Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9 Cir.1982). “Although case th

law does not articulate a precise definition of ‘legal prejudice,’ the cases focus on the rights and

defenses available to a defendant in future litigation.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States,

100 F.3d 94, 97 (9 Cir.1996). Legal prejudice requires “prejudice to some legal interest, some th

legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Lenches, 263 F.3d at 976; Westlands Water Dist., 100

F.3d att 97. The mere prospect of a second lawsuit or the uncertainty which exists because the

dispute remains unresolved does not constitute sufficient legal prejudice. Westlands Water Dist.,

100 F.3d att 97.

DISCUSSION

The evidence before the court shows that no party would be prejudiced if the court

dismissed Defendant Ford. In her application for an order shortening time, Plaintiff provides

evidence that the TRW Defendants do not contest the dismissal of Defendant Ford. Plaintiff

provides evidence that Defendant Robert Santos, who is appearing in pro se, has been asked

whether he agrees to Defendant Ford’s dismissal, but he has not indicated whether he will

consent to Defendant Ford’s dismissal. Pursuant to the court’s April 4, 2008 order, the court

ordered any opposition to Defendant Ford’s dismissal be filed by April 14, 2008. Neither

Defendant Robert Santos nor any other Defendant filed an opposition. Neither Defendant Robert

Santos nor any other Defendant appeared at the April 21, 2008 hearing to object to the dismissal.

Based on the evidence and argument before the court, the court will grant Plaintiff’s

motion to dismiss Defendant Ford with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Plaintiff and

Defendant Ford have reached a settlement, and Defendant Ford has already given settlement

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 04/22/08 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

funds to Plaintiff’s attorney. Defendants TRW have indicated they do not oppose Defendant

Ford’s dismissal. No party asks Defendant Ford’s dismissal be delayed or subject to any

conditions. There has been no showing that any Defendant will suffer some plain legal

prejudice as a result of Defendant Ford’s dismissal. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Defendant Ford Motor Company with

prejudice is GRANTED; and

2. Defendant Ford Motor Company is DISMISSED from this action pursuant

to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01773-OWW -DLB Document 50 Filed 04/22/08 Page 4 of 4