Bentacourt v. California Western School of Law, 19cv714-LAB (MDD). (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190826800
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 19] LARRY ALAN BURNS , Chief District Judge . Until July of this year, Plaintiff Shiloh Bentacourt was represented in this discrimination action by her retained counsel, Maria Hinayon. On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Ms. Hinayon's to withdraw as counsel and instructed Ms. Bentacourt to file a motion for substitution within 60 days, indicating whether she would represent herself or have new counsel to represent her in this action. Instead, Ms. Benta
Summary: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 19] LARRY ALAN BURNS , Chief District Judge . Until July of this year, Plaintiff Shiloh Bentacourt was represented in this discrimination action by her retained counsel, Maria Hinayon. On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Ms. Hinayon's to withdraw as counsel and instructed Ms. Bentacourt to file a motion for substitution within 60 days, indicating whether she would represent herself or have new counsel to represent her in this action. Instead, Ms. Bentac..
More
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Dkt. 19]
LARRY ALAN BURNS, Chief District Judge.
Until July of this year, Plaintiff Shiloh Bentacourt was represented in this discrimination action by her retained counsel, Maria Hinayon. On July 15, 2019, the Court granted Ms. Hinayon's to withdraw as counsel and instructed Ms. Bentacourt to file a motion for substitution within 60 days, indicating whether she would represent herself or have new counsel to represent her in this action. Instead, Ms. Bentacourt now moves pro se to dismiss this case without prejudice while she secures representation.
Because Defendants have filed responsive pleadings, a court order is required to unilaterally dismiss the case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). But "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). There's no legal prejudice here. Although Defendant Susan Finster has a currently pending motion to dismiss that she may want resolved on the merits prior to dismissal, she may renew that motion if Ms. Bentacourt elects to re-file.
Ms. Bentacourt's Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt. 19. Ms. Finster's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. Dkt. 6. The clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
