Tanis v. Southwest Airlines Co.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 17, 2019
• Docket: 3:18-cv-02333
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

5 6

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SUZANNE TANIS, Case No. 18-cv-2333-BAS-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 12 PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 v. [ECF No. 20] 14 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES, CO. et al,

15 Defendants.

16 17

18 Plaintiff Suzanne Tanis filed a complaint in San Diego Superior Court against 19 Defendant Southwest Airlines Co. Southwest removed the case to this Court and 20 answered the complaint. (ECF Nos. 1, 2.) Southwest moved to compel arbitration, 21 which the Court granted and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. (ECF No. 22 16.) A few months later, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, stating she 23 was dismissing her case without prejudice. (ECF No. 17.) Southwest objected to the 24 notice for a few reasons, one being that the case could not be dismissed without a 25 court order. (ECF No. 18.) Indeed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 41(a)(2), the case could not be dismissed without a court order because Southwest 27 had filed an answer. The Court denied Plaintiff’s request and informed her that she 1 Plaintiff has done so and moves to dismiss her entire case without prejudice. 2 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 20.) Southwest opposes the Motion. (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 21.) 3 I. LEGAL STANDARD 4 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) states that “an action may be 5 dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court 6 considers proper. . . . Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this 7 paragraph (2) is without prejudice.” Further, “[a] district court should grant a motion 8 for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will 9 suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 10 (9th Cir. 2001) (footnote omitted). “‘[L]egal prejudice’ means ‘prejudice to some 11 legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.’” Id. at 976 (quoting 12 Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). “[P]lain 13 legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced 14 by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical 15 advantage.” Id. But “blatant forum shopping may be valid grounds to deny a Rule 16 41(a)(2) motion.” Sukonik v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., No. 14-8278-BRO (MRWx), 17 2016 WL 5921124, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2016 (citing Kern Oil & Ref. Co. v. 18 Tenneco Oil Co., 792 F.2d 1380, 1389–90 (9th Cir. 1986)). 19 II. ANALYSIS 20 In arguing prejudice, Southwest points to the procedural history of this and 21 another related case. Southwest notes that soon after Plaintiff filed the instant action, 22 she filed a second complaint in state court. (Mot. at 2.) The present case was filed 23 as a putative class action, and the second case is a putative representation action filed 24 under the Private Attorneys’ Generals Act (“PAGA”). (Id.) At Southwest’s request, 25 the state court judge stayed the PAGA case pending arbitration. (Id. at 3.) The judge 26 acknowledged that Plaintiff stated she would dismiss her individual claims to avoid 27 arbitration if the PAGA case was stayed. (Id.) The PAGA case is currently stayed. 1 |;argues that if this case is dismissed without prejudice, it will allow Plaintiff to 2 ||‘‘circumvent this Court’s arbitration order” and take advantage of forum shopping. 3 || (Ud. at 2,5.) Southwest requests the Court “enter an order denying the Motion and 4 ||instructing Plaintiff that the Court will dismiss her action with prejudice if she does 5 || not initiate arbitration within 21 days of the Court’s order denying the Motion.” (/d.) 6 || Plaintiff states she does not want to pursue her individual and class claims at this 7 ||time, and she acknowledges that if she decides to pursue those claims, she will need 8 do so in arbitration. (“Reply,” ECF No. 22, at 2.) 9 The Court finds that there is no evidence of forum shopping. Instead, Plaintiff 10 ||seeks to pursue her PAGA claims rather than her individual and class claims. The 11 |}Court cannot force Plaintiff to initiate arbitration (as Southwest requests) if she 12 ||instead chooses to drop her claims and pursue non-arbitrable claims. Therefore, the 13 Court finds no legal prejudice to Southwest. If Plaintiff ever does decide to pursue 14 ||her individual or class claims, she acknowledges she must do so in arbitration, thus, 15 || Southwest is not losing any legal rights. And if Plaintiff decides to pursue her claims 16 ||in arbitration, Southwest will not be forced to repeat any work or expend any 17 ||unnecessary resources. The only actions it has taken have been in this Court, and 18 those actions would not need to be duplicated in an arbitration proceeding. Further, 19 Southwest has no right to have Plaintiff's PAGA claims litigated in arbitration, so it 20 |/is not losing any rights in defending them in state court. Without any legal prejudice 21 ||to Southwest, the Court finds no basis to deny Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. 22 Ht. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss 24 ||and DISMISSES this case without prejudice. The Clerk is instructed to close the 25 file. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. J 27 ||DATED: October 17, 2019 ( ill q_ | Aphis A 28 United States District Judge