Pacific Resources Associates LLC v. Suzy Cleaners

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PACIFIC RESOURCES ASSOCIATES Case No.: 3:20-cv-00234-RBM-DEB LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, (1) UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION v. FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S 15 CLAIMS AGAINST THE HORTMAN SUZY CLEANERS, an organization, et al., PARTIES Defendants.

17 (2) UNOPPOSED JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS AGAINST THE KIMS AND 19 ALL REMAINING CLAIMS BY PLAINTIFF 21 [Docs. 198, 199]

23 On April 29, 2024, Plaintiff Pacific Resources Associates LLC (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants Kim Hortman Buhler and Norman Alton Hortman, III, as trustees of the Norman Alton Hortman and Barbara Hortman Revocable Trust No. 1 dated July 2, 1985, and Kim Hortman Buhler, as the court appointed administrator and executor of the Estate of Barbara Hortman (collectively, the “Hortman Parties”), filed an Unopposed Joint Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claims Against the Hortman Parties (“Joint Motion No. 1”). (Doc. 198.) In Joint Motion No. 1, Plaintiff and the Hortman Parties state, “IT IS THUS HEREBY STIPULATED that all of Plaintiff’s claims against the Hortman Parties are dismissed, with prejudice, with Plaintiff and the Hortman Parties each bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs.” (Id. at 3.)

5 The same day, Plaintiff and Defendants Guhn Y. Kim, Yun Soon Kim, and The Kim Family Trust of 2017 (collectively, the “Kims”) filed an Unopposed Joint Motion for Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Claims Against the Kims and All Remaining Claims by Plaintiff (“Joint Motion No. 2”). (Doc. 199.) In Joint Motion No. 2, Plaintiff and the Kims state, “IT IS THUS HEREBY STIPULATED that Plaintiff’s claims against the Kims are dismissed, with prejudice, with Plaintiff and the Kims each bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff’s complaint and all claims therein against all other defendants in this action, including Suk H. Lee, Gail Lee, Il Young Chung, Santa Maria Midtown Properties, LLC, and DOES 1-10, are dismissed without prejudice.” (Id. at 4.)

14 “Rule 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to ‘dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.’” Dougan v. Centerplate, Inc., Case No. 22-CV-1496 JLS (SBC), 2023 WL 18 8604152, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2023) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)). In other words, “parties are free to settle their disputes on their own terms, and plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss their claims without a court order.” Frank v. Gaos, 139 S. Ct. 1041, 1046 (2019) (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(A)). “Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).

23 Accordingly, Joint Motion No. 1 and Joint Motion No. 2 are GRANTED. Plaintiff’s claims against the Hortman Parties are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with Plaintiff and the Hortman Parties each bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs. Likewise, Plaintiff’s claims against the Kims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with Plaintiff and the Kims each bearing their own attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiff’s complaint, and all claims therein, against all other defendants in this action, including Suk H. Lee, Gail 1 Il Young Chung, Santa Maria Midtown Properties, LLC, and DOES 1-10, are || DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 ||DATE: May 1, 2024 GE Erraly Melia.

6 HONYRUTH BERMUBEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE