From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hofer

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Mar 3, 2022
No. 20-CV-0852-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2022)

Opinion

20-CV-0852-BAS-RBB

03-03-2022

HUDSON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT HOFER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 60)

Hon. Cynthia Bashant, United States District Judge

Before the Court is the parties' joint motion to dismiss with prejudice this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (Joint Mot., ECF No. 60.)

“Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)); Blue Mountain Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 (1960). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” from: (1) “[uncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145).

Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court GRANTS the Motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Love's claims. (ECF 60.) Costs and fees are to be handled in accordance with the settlement agreement executed by the parties. (Id. ¶ 3.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hofer

United States District Court, Southern District of California
Mar 3, 2022
No. 20-CV-0852-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Hudson Specialty Ins. Co. v. Hofer

Case Details

Full title:HUDSON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT HOFER, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Mar 3, 2022

Citations

No. 20-CV-0852-BAS-RBB (S.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2022)