From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schaeffer v. Gregory Village Partners, L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 28, 2015
Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST

06-28-2015

RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et al., Defendants.


ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2) AS TO DEFENDANT CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT WITH PREJUDICE

Re: ECF No. 230

Before the Court is the parties' joint motion for voluntary dismissal as to Defendant Central Contra Costa Sanitary District with prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 230. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs brought this action in Contra Costa Superior Court against Defendant Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, a California Special District ("District") and past and present owners and operators of dry cleaning establishments in Pleasant Hill, California. ECF No. 152 at 2. Plaintiffs' operative complaint seeks compensation and injunctive relief for hazardous substance contamination located on their property and in the surrounding neighborhood. Id. at 3. The case was removed on the basis of federal question to this Court in September 2013. ECF No. 1. Since the case was removed, Plaintiffs have settled with several of the Defendants, including the District. ECF No. 152 at 3.

On February 19, 2015, Plaintiffs and the District filed a Joint Notice of Settlement and Application for Good Faith Settlement Determination. ECF Nos. 152, 158, 186. The Plaintiffs and the District agreed, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 877.6, to a general release of all claims related to the District in this action in exchange for the District's settlement payment of $50,000 to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 186, Ex. 1 (Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims). On April 24, 2015, this Court approved Plaintiffs and the District's Application for a Good Faith Settlement Determination. ECF No. 220. On May 28, 2015, Plaintiffs and the District jointly filed the instant motion to voluntarily dismiss the case as to Defendant Central Contra Costa Sanitary District with prejudice. ECF No. 230. The motion is unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) governs the voluntary dismissal of an action by the plaintiff. Rule 41(a) may be invoked to dismiss less than all of the parties in an action. See Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 (citations omitted). It is within the district court's sound discretion to grant or deny a motion made under Rule 41(a)(2). Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980). "[A] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal 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); Waller v. Financial Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir.1987). "Plain legal prejudice" means "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). The Court may dismiss with or without prejudice, but "[u]nless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs and the District have jointly moved for the action to be dismissed as to Defendant the District with prejudice. ECF No. 230. The parties also requested that the motion be granted "with settling parties to bear their own fees and costs as between the settling parties." Id.

The Court must first consider, under Rule 41(a), whether dismissal of the District would result in legal prejudice to any other Defendants in this action. Per Civil Local Rule 7-3(a), any oppositions to the joint motion were due no later than June 11, 2015. No Defendants filed an opposition to the joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the District. The Court concludes no Defendant will "suffer some plain legal prejudice" as a result of the District's dismissal from the action with prejudice. See Lenches, 263 F.3d at 975. Plaintiffs have already agreed to a release of all claims related to the district in exchange for settlement. ECF No. 186, Ex. 1.

The parties have also requested that the Court grant the dismissal as to the District with prejudice and order the settling parties to bear their own fees and costs. ECF No. 230. The Court finds that dismissal of the District with prejudice is appropriate and orders that the settling parties shall bear their own fees and costs related to this action.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will GRANT Plaintiffs and the District's joint motion to voluntarily dismiss all claims against Central Contra Costa Sanitary District with prejudice. The settling parties are to bear their own fees and costs as between the settling parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 28, 2015

/s/_________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Schaeffer v. Gregory Village Partners, L.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Jun 28, 2015
Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2015)
Case details for

Schaeffer v. Gregory Village Partners, L.P.

Case Details

Full title:RYAN SCHAEFFER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GREGORY VILLAGE PARTNERS, L.P., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jun 28, 2015

Citations

Case No. 13-cv-04358-JST (N.D. Cal. Jun. 28, 2015)