Opinion
CV-23-00882-PHX-GMS
09-20-2023
Candance Wong, Plaintiff, v. Tri-Rotor Ag Services Incorporated, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
G. MURRAY SNOW, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Candance Wong's Notice of Dismissal of Plaintiff's Punitive Damages Claim. (Doc. 41.) For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff's notice.
DISCUSSION
On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) alleging nine violations of the law. The ninth cause of action requested punitive damages among other relief for the wrongful death of Ripson Wong. (Id. at 42-44.) On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff's ninth claim. (Doc. 41.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice and without consent of the court by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) “strips a court of jurisdiction [and] terminates the case all by itself.” Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation omitted). “[A]ny claims voluntarily dismissed, [are] waived if not re[-]pled.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that her voluntary dismissal of count nine does “not act as a waiver of Plaintiff's right to ask for a jury instruction for punitive damages should Plaintiff come forward with enough evidence to support such instruction.” (Doc. 41 at 1.) The Court disagrees. A court does not retain jurisdiction over any dismissed claims. Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Szabo Food Serv., Inc., at 1078). Therefore, Plaintiff must retain or dismiss her ninth cause of action. If voluntarily dismissed and not re-pled, Plaintiff may not request a jury instruction for punitive damages concerning count nine because the Court would no longer have jurisdiction over the claim.
Regarding the parties' pending motions, the Court will rule on them in due course.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal (Doc. 41) is DENIED.