Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Bannister, 3-16-cv-00399-MMD-VPC. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180521935 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 18, 2018
Latest Update: May 18, 2018
Summary: ORDER MIRANDA M. DU , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Two Defendants per Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) ("Motion"). (ECF No. 80.) Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 87.) For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion. "Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff, pursuant to an order of the court, and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems
More

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Two Defendants per Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) ("Motion"). (ECF No. 80.) Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 87.) For the following reasons, the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion.

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff, pursuant to an order of the court, and subject to any terms and conditions the court deems proper, to dismiss an action without prejudice at any time." Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir.1996) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); Stevedoring Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir.1989)). "The purpose of the rule is to permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action without prejudice so long as the defendant will not be prejudiced or unfairly affected by dismissal." Stevedoring Servs., 889 F.2d at 921 (citations omitted). "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). "`[L]egal prejudice' means `prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.'" Id. at 976 (quoting Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97).

Plaintiff moves to dismiss Defendants Jonathan Perry and Candis Brockway from the first and third claims in his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).1 (ECF No. 80 at 1.) Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's Motion. (ECF No. 87 at 1.)

It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 80) is granted.

FootNotes


1. Plaintiff filed his SAC on March 13, 2018 (ECF No. 64 at 1), and the Court has not yet screened it.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer