Wong v. Tri-Rotor Ag Services Incorporated

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Candance Wong, No. CV-23-00882-PHX-GMS 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Tri-Rotor Ag Services Incorporated, et al., 13 Defendants.

16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Candance Wong’s Notice of Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Punitive Damages Claim. (Doc. 41.) For the following reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s notice.

19 DISCUSSION 20 On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. 22) alleging nine violations of the law. The ninth cause of action requested punitive damages among other relief for the wrongful death of Ripson Wong. (Id. at 42–44.) On September 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s ninth claim. (Doc. 41.)

24 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss an action without prejudice and without consent of the court by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) “strips a court of jurisdiction [and] terminates the case all by itself.” Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1078 (7th Cir. 1987) Gnternal quotation omitted). “[AJny claims voluntarily dismissed, 2|| [are] waived if not re[-]pled.” Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012).

3 Here, Plaintiff asserts that her voluntary dismissal of count nine does “not act as a 4|| waiver of Plaintiffs right to ask for a jury instruction for punitive damages should Plaintiff || come forward with enough evidence to support such instruction.” (Doc. 41 at 1.) The || Court disagrees. A court does not retain jurisdiction over any dismissed claims. Com.

7\| Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n.4 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Szabo || Food Serv., Inc., at 1078). Therefore, Plaintiff must retain or dismiss her ninth cause of action. If voluntarily dismissed and not re-pled, Plaintiff may not request a jury instruction || for punitive damages concerning count nine because the Court would no longer have 11} jurisdiction over the claim.

12 Regarding the parties’ pending motions, the Court will rule on them in due course.

13 CONCLUSION 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Notice of Dismissal (Doc. 41) is DENIED.

17 Dated this 20th day of September, 2023.

18 - 19 A Whacrsay Fotos Micrrey 20 Chief United States District Judge _2-