Trent v. United States of America

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: December 3, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00278
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICAH TRENT, Case No. 21-cv-0278-BAS-MDD

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 27) 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action with prejudice 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 27.) 19 Plaintiff Micah Trent brought this action against the United States on February 16, 2021, 20 alleging that she suffered injuries from a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by the 21 negligence of a United States Post Office (“USPS”) employee who, at the time of the crash, 22 was operating a vehicle owned by the USPS. (Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1.) Defendant 23 answered the Complaint on June 10, 2021. (ECF No. 9.) 24 The parties settled on October 1, 2021, thereby resolving the dispute underlying the 25 Complaint. (Mot. ¶ 2; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to id., ECF No. 11-1.) Consequently, 26 the parties jointly moved to dismiss the case with prejudice on November 29, 2021. (ECF 27 No. 27.) 28 1 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the □□□□□□□□□□□ 2 ||request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 ||41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 4 |lunder Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]’’ 5 || Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 6 || alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 7 || Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 8 ||/(1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 9 defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 10 || 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal 11 |/interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 12 || States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” 13 ||from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 14 litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 15 plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 16 || Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 17 Because Defendant does not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 18 prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 19 || GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 27.) The clerk of 20 || court shall close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 / yy 23 || DATED: December 3, 2021 ( itl A (Lohan 6 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28