1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT V. OSE, a Natural Person, ) Case No.: :20-cv-02093-BEN-AGS ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER 13 v. ) ) (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware ) MOTION TO REMAND AS corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, 15 ) MOOT inclusive, ) 16 Defendant. ) (2) GRANTING THE JOINT 17 ) MOTION TO DISMISS ) 18 ) [ECF Nos. 6, 9] 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 Plaintiff SCOTT V. OSE, an individual (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against 21 Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation (“Defendant”) for 22 breach for various implied and express warranties related to his purchase of an automobile 23 from Defendant. ECF No. 1. 24 Before the Court are (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, ECF No. 6, and (2) the Joint 25 Motion to Dismiss the Case brought by Plaintiff and Defendant (the “Joint Motion”), ECF 26 No. 9. After considering the papers submitted, supporting documentation, and applicable 27 law, the Court (1) DENIES the Motion to Remand as moot and (2) GRANTS the Joint 28 Motion. 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 A. Statement of Facts 3 On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff purchased a 2018 Ford F-150 pick-up, Vehicle 4 Identification Number 1FTFW1E19JFD86822 (the “Vehicle”), from Defendant, but 5 during the warranty period, the Vehicle developed numerous defects. ECF No. 1-2 at 4:7- 6 9, 5:9-10. 7 B. Procedural History 8 On September 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the San Diego Superior Court, 9 alleging causes of action for (1) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, CAL. 10 CIV. CODE § 1794; (2) breach of the implied warranty of particular purpose, CAL. CIV. 11 CODE § 1794; (3) breach of the express warranty, CAL. CIV. CODE § 1794; (4) failure to 12 promptly repurchase product, CAL. CIV. CODE § 1793.2(d); and (5) failure to commence 13 repairs within a reasonable time to complete them within thirty days, CAL. CIV. CODE § 14 1794. See generally ECF No. 1-2; see also ECF No. 1 at 1:25-2:3. On October 22, 2020, 15 Defendant filed an answer to Plaintiff’s complaint. ECF No. 1 at 2:3-4. However, on 16 October 26, 2020, Defendant removed this case to the Southern District of California and 17 filed an answer to the complaint. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 18 On November 25, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand the Case to the San 19 Diego Superior Court. ECF No. 6. However, on December 7, 2020, the Court held an 20 Early Neutral Evaluation, the parties accepted the Court’s settlement proposal, and 21 Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler placed the settlement terms on the record. ECF 22 No. 8. The parties were instructed to provide an oral status report to the Court on the 23 filing of a Joint Motion to Dismiss by March 24, 2021. On February 24, 2021, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss. 24 III. LEGAL STANDARD 25 Where a plaintiff does not proceed by filing a notice or stipulation of dismissal, “an 26 action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the 27 28 court considers proper.” FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2); see also Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d | 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (providing that a “district court should grant a motion for 2 voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer 3 some plain legal prejudice as a result”); Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 4 143, 145 (Oth Cir. 1982) (noting that “plain legal prejudice does not result merely > || because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or © || where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal”). A dismissal under 7 41(a)(2) by court order is without prejudice “[u]nless the order states otherwise.” 8 |/IV. ORDER 9 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the parties jointly move to 10 || dismiss this entire action with prejudice. Having read and considered the Joint Motion 11 || submitted by Plaintiff and Defendants, and good cause appearing, the Joint Motion is 12 || GRANTED as follows: 13 1. Plaintiff's claims against Defendant are dismissed in their entirety as to all 14 || claims for relief with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). 15 2. In light of the dismissal, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is DENIED as moot. 16 See, e.g., Tur v. YouTube, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (“[A]n issue is moot 17 || when deciding it would have no effect within the confines of the case itself.’’). 18 3. Each party is to bear its own costs, fees, and expenses. 19 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 |) DATED: March 3, 2021 22 ON. ROGER T. BENITE 74 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 3.