Perez v. Cogburn

Opinion

1 . 2 3 4 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT GF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C18-1800-JLR-BAT 10 vy. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 11 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL CALVIN COGBURN, et al., . Defendant. 13 14 Plaintiff, Daniel Jay Perez, proceeds pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, 15 || Defendants have filed answers to plaintiff's amended complaint. Dkts. 40, 41. On September 11, 16 2019, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss defendant Nora Bloomingdale from this action 17 || pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 “without attorney’s fees or costs.” Dkt, 70. None of the defendants 1g || opposed or otherwise responded to the motion. 19 On October 9, 2019, plaintiff moved to “supplement” his motion to voluntarily dismiss 20 defendant Bloomingdale to fix a typographical error in his original motion. Dkt. 73. Specifically, 91 || plaintiff indicates that the motion should read “[t]here should be no award of attorney’s fee’s 92 || [sic] or any cost” and that his previous motion had omitted the word “no” from this sentence. □□□ 23 || On October 10, 2019, defendant Bloomingdale filed a response to plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 70) and motion for leave to supplement his motion to dismiss (Dkt. 73) stating she “does ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL - 1

1 || not oppose the plaintiff's motion to dismiss her from this lawsuit, and she does not intend to 2 || pursue attorney’s fees and costs due to plaintiffs willingness to voluntarily dismiss her from this ‘3 || lawsuit.” Dt. 74. 4 Once an answer has been filed to the operative complaint, a plaintiff may dismiss an 5 || action only by court order and on terms that the court considers proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 || 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under 7 || Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the District Court[.]” Hamilton v. Firestone 8 || Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir, 1982), At this point, although defendants 9 || have filed answers and discovery has commenced, no dispositive motions have been filed. 10 || Under the circumstances, at this relatively early stage of the case, and considering that defendant 11 || Bloomingdale does net oppose the plaintiffs motions and none of the other defendants have 12 || filed opposition to the motions, the court is persuaded that defendant Bloomingdale will not 13 || suffer any legal prejudice by the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. See id. 14 Accordingly, plaintiff's motions for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 70) and to supplement the 15 || motion for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 73) are GRANTED, Plaintiffs claims against defendant 16 || Bloomingdale are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without attorneys fees or costs to 17 || either side. See Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996) 18 || (Imposition of costs and fees as a condition for dismissing without prejudice is not mandatory). 19 DATED this qa day of Ochobya. , 2919, 21

no 23 James L. Robart United States|District Court Judge

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL - 2