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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET WARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

THE COUNTY OF MENDOCINO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00911-PJH 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE OF DEFENDANTS

KINDRED AND GOODMAN AND 

VACATING HEARING

Re: Dkt. No. 142

Before the court is plaintiffs’ motion to voluntarily dismiss defendants Kindred 

Healthcare Operating, Inc. (“Kindred”) and Kathy Louise Goodman (together the “Kindred 

Defendants”) with prejudice. Dkt. 142. The matter is fully briefed and suitable for 

decision without oral argument.1 Accordingly, the hearing set for April 17, 2019 is 

VACATED. Having read the parties’ papers and carefully considered their arguments 

and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby rules as 

follows.

On October 2, 2018, the parties attended a mandatory settlement conference with 

Judge Beeler. See Dkt. 116. At that settlement conference, plaintiffs reached a 

settlement agreement with the Kindred Defendants, and on February 22, 2019, this court 

granted Kindred’s motion to determine that settlement was made in good faith under 

 

1 Although fully briefed, none of the parties provided chambers with a paper copy of the 

documents it electronically filed, in violation of Civil Local Rule 5-1(e)(7) and this court’s 

standing orders. The parties are reminded that “Chambers copies of each electronicallyfiled document must . . . be delivered to the Clerk's Office by noon the day following its 

filing.” Judge Hamilton’s Civil Pretrial Instructions ¶ A.6.
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

California Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6. Dkt. 139. Plaintiffs now move the court to 

dismiss the Kindred Defendants from this action with prejudice.

Kindred supports the motion. Dkt. 142-1 ¶ 2. Each additional defendant (other 

than Goodman, whom the parties are unable to reach) has filed a statement of nonopposition to the motion. Dkts. 143, 147.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that an action may be dismissed 

at the plaintiff's request by court order “on terms that the court considers proper. . . . 

Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without 

prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “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.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Given that plaintiffs have settled their claims against the Kindred Defendants, the 

court has determined that settlement was made in good faith under California law, and no 

defendant has opposed this motion or attempted to show that it will suffer any legal 

prejudice from the proposed dismissals, the court finds that plaintiffs’ request to dismiss 

the Kindred Defendants is proper.

Accordingly, Kindred Healthcare Operating, Inc. and Kathy Louise Goodman are 

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The hearing set for April 17, 2019 is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3, 2019

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge