Gurdip Singh v. James Chiang, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 || GURDIP SINGH, ) Case No. ED CV 25-3024 FMO (SP) 12 Plaintiff, 13 V. ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT ) PREJUDICE JAMES CHIANG, et al., ) 15 Defendants. 16 ) 17 The court has received petitioner's Response to Suggestion of Mootness, filed on March 10, 2026, in which he “request[ed] that the Court dismiss the action without prejudice.” (Dkt. 20, Response at 1). Because respondents have filed an Answer to the Petition, (see Dkt. 10, 20] Answer), the court will construe petitioner's filing as a Motion to Dismiss the Petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 22 Once an answer has been filed to the operative pleading, a plaintiff may dismiss an action 23] only by court order and on terms that the court considers proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). 24] Although defendants have filed an Answer to the Petition, (see Dkt. 10, Answer), that is an 25 | insufficient basis to deny petitioner's request for dismissal. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Firestone Tire 26] & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 146 (9th Cir. 1982) (“The very purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to allowa District Court, in its discretion, to dismiss an action without prejudice even after responsive pleadings have been filed by the defendant.”); see also id. at 145 (“The Ninth Circuit has long held

1 that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound 2 discretion of the District Court[.]”). Under the circumstances, particularly given that respondents 3 themselves contend the action is moot and request dismissal of the action, (see Dkt. 17, Notice 4 of Compliance at 1-2), the court is persuaded that respondents will not suffer any legal prejudice 5 by the dismissal of the Petition without prejudice. See Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145 (“In ruling on a 6 motion for voluntary dismissal, the District Court must consider whether the defendant will suffer 7 some plain legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal.”); Waller v. Financial Corp. of Am., 828 8 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987) (“In this circuit, as elsewhere, a district court should grant a motion 9 for voluntary dismissal unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice 10 as a result.”). 11 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT: 12 1. Petitioner’s Response to Suggestion of Mootness (Document No. 20) shall be 13 construed as petitioner’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 14 Procedure 41(a)(2). Petitioner’s Motion is granted. 15 2. Judgment shall be entered dismissing the action without prejudice. 16 Dated this 13th day of March, 2026. 17 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28