From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gustine v. Cnty. of San Diego

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jul 24, 2021
19cv903-LAB (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2021)

Opinion

19cv903-LAB (NLS)

07-24-2021

BRENT EDWARD GUSTINE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant.


ORDER CONSTRUING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS

Hon. Larry Alan Burns United States District Judge.

The parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendants Honesto Patawaran, Traci Levin, and Jose Padilla. The joint motion did not say whether the dismissal was to be with or without prejudice, but it did specify that the “dismissal does not constitute an adjudication on the merits.” The Court construes this to mean the dismissal is to be without prejudice. See Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001) (treating “adjudication upon the merits” as the opposite of “dismissal without prejudice”); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that adjudication on the merits and dismissal with prejudice are used interchangeably). If this was not the parties' intention, they should file an amended joint motion no later than July 28, 2021 , asking that these Defendants be dismissed with prejudice.

If the parties intend the dismissal to be without prejudice, however, they need not do anything, and the Court will rule on the joint motion as filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Gustine v. Cnty. of San Diego

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Jul 24, 2021
19cv903-LAB (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2021)
Case details for

Gustine v. Cnty. of San Diego

Case Details

Full title:BRENT EDWARD GUSTINE, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Jul 24, 2021

Citations

19cv903-LAB (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Jul. 24, 2021)