Francis v. Washington State Ferries

W.D. Washington

Francis v. Washington State Ferries

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided November 6, 2023·No. 2:23-cv-01410·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE JOE FRANCIS, et al., CASE NO. C23-1410-KKE Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES, et al., Defendant.

THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants on September 9, 2023. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint on October 4, 2023. Dkt. No. 8. Defendants have not filed a counterclaim and have not filed any opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides in relevant part “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, upon terms that the court considers proper.” Dismissal is without prejudice unless the order states otherwise. Id. Whether to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) lies in the sound discretion of the district court. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). “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.” Id. (citing Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d

579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Court, having reviewed the motion and the balance of the docket, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. No. 10) and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the clerk is directed to close this case. Dated this 6th day of November, 2023. A Kymberly K. Evanson United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE JOE FRANCIS, et al., CASE NO. C23-1410-KKE Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL v. WASHINGTON STATE FERRIES, et al., Defendant.

THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Dkt. No. 10. Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants on September 9, 2023. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants filed an answer to the Complaint on October 4, 2023. Dkt. No. 8. Defendants have not filed a counterclaim and have not filed any opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides in relevant part “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, upon terms that the court considers proper.” Dismissal is without prejudice unless the order states otherwise. Id. Whether to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) lies in the sound discretion of the district court. See Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). “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.” Id. (citing Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 F.2d

579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987)). The Court, having reviewed the motion and the balance of the docket, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion (Dkt. No. 10) and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorney’s fees and costs, and the clerk is directed to close this case. Dated this 6th day of November, 2023. A Kymberly K. Evanson United States District Judge

Francis v. Washington State Ferries, (W.D. Wash. 2023).

Pincite

Francis v. Washington State Ferries (Francis v. Washington State Ferries) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related