1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRENT EDWARD GUSTINE, Case No.: 19cv903-LAB (NLS)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER CONSTRUING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANTS 14 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, 15 Defendant. 16 17 The parties jointly moved to dismiss Defendants Honesto Patawaran, Traci 18 Levin, and Jose Padilla. The joint motion did not say whether the dismissal was to 19 be with or without prejudice, but it did specify that the “dismissal does not constitute 20 an adjudication on the merits.” The Court construes this to mean the dismissal is 21 to be without prejudice. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,

(2001) (treating “adjudication upon the merits” as the opposite of 23 “dismissal without prejudice”); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp,

(9th Cir. 24 2002) (noting that adjudication on the merits and dismissal with prejudice are used 25 interchangeably). If this was not the parties’ intention, they should file an amended 26 joint motion no later than July 28, 2021, asking that these Defendants be 27 dismissed with prejudice. 28 / / / 1 If the parties intend the dismissal to be without prejudice, however, they need 2 ||not do anything, and the Court will rule on the joint motion as filed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 ||Dated: July 24, 2021 9 [; Ue / 4 (Bug 6 Hon. Larry Alan Burns 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28