Young v. Target Corporation

S.D. California

Young v. Target Corporation

DecidedDecember 14, 2021

Docket3:21-cv-01280

StatusUnknown

This text of Young v. Target Corporation (Young v. Target Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Target Corporation, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL YOUNG, Case No. 21-cv-1280-BAS-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 21) 14 TARGET CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2) in light of their execution of a negotiated 19 settlement agreement resolving this matter in its entirety. (Mot., ECF No. 21.) 20 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 21 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 23 under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 24 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 25 alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 26 Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 27 (1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 28 a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. 1 || Lunches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to 2 ||some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. 3 || v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal 4 ||prejudice” from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat 5 || of future litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; 6 (3) a plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 7 || (citing Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 8 Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 9 prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 10 || GRANTS the Joint Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 21.) The clerk 11 court shall close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 / 14 || DATED: December 14, 2021 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARRELL YOUNG, Case No. 21-cv-1280-BAS-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 21) 14 TARGET CORPORATION,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2) in light of their execution of a negotiated 19 settlement agreement resolving this matter in its entirety. (Mot., ECF No. 21.) 20 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 21 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 23 under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 24 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 25 alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 26 Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 27 (1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 28 a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. 1 || Lunches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to 2 ||some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. 3 || v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal 4 ||prejudice” from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat 5 || of future litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; 6 (3) a plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 7 || (citing Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 8 Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 9 prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 10 || GRANTS the Joint Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 21.) The clerk 11 court shall close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 / 14 || DATED: December 14, 2021 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Young v. Target Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-target-corporation-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack