1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SHILOH ANGEL BENTACOURT, CASE NO. 19cv714-LAB (MDD) 11

Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO vs. DISMISS [Dkt. 19] 13 CALIFORNIA WESTERN SCHOOL OF 14 LAW, et al., 15 Defendants.

16 Until July of this year, Plaintiff Shiloh Bentacourt was represented in this 17 discrimination action by her retained counsel, Maria Hinayon. On July 15, 2019, the Court 18 granted Ms. Hinayon’s to withdraw as counsel and instructed Ms. Bentacourt to file a 19 motion for substitution within 60 days, indicating whether she would represent herself or 20 have new counsel to represent her in this action. Instead, Ms. Bentacourt now moves 21 pro se to dismiss this case without prejudice while she secures representation. 22 Because Defendants have filed responsive pleadings, a court order is required to 23 unilaterally dismiss the case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). But “a district court should 24 grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show 25 that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches,

, 26 975 (9th Cir. 2001). There’s no legal prejudice here. Although Defendant Susan Finster 27 has a currently pending motion to dismiss that she may want resolved on the merits prior 28 to dismissal, she may renew that motion if Ms. Bentacourt elects to re-file. 1 Ms. Bentacourt’s Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss is GRANTED, and this action is 2 || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt. 19. Ms. Finster’s Motion to Dismiss is 3 || DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS MOOT. Dkt. 6. The clerk is directed to close the 4 || case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: August 22, 2019 b A. (buy 7 hd 8 Chief United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28