Alain Deveroux and Jennifer Valle, individually, and as successors in interest...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ALAIN DEVEROUX AND JENNIFER Case No. 1:23-cv-00239-CDB VALLE, individually, and as successors in interest of JULIEN DEVEROUX, ORDER ON STIPULATED, 13 Plaintiffs, UNOPPOSED REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT TORREZ 14 v. PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2) COUNTY OF KERN, et al., (Docs. 216, 219) 16 Defendants.

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 17 DEFENDANT TORREZ’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 179)

21 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ stipulated request seeking dismissal with prejudice of Defendant Nicholas Torrez pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

23 (Doc. 216). The stipulation was signed only by counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant Torrez. In order to inform the Court as to whether such dismissal is warranted, the Court directed all other appearing parties (the County Defendants) to file a statement of opposition or non- opposition to the dismissal. (Doc. 217). On September 25, 2025, County Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition as to the request for dismissal of Defendant Torrez. (Doc. 219).

28 It is within a district court’s discretion to grant a motion for dismissal brought pursuant to | Rule 41(a)(2). Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982).

2 | Accourt “should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can | show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 | (9th Cir. 2001). “Legal prejudice means prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some | legal argument” and does not result because the dispute remains unresolved, because of the threat | of future litigation, or 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.” Jd. at 976 (citations | and quotations omitted).

9 Defendant Torrez has stipulated to the request and the County Defendants do not oppose || the request. No Defendant has set forth any resulting legal prejudice. Thus, the Court finds | dismissal with prejudice as requested to be “proper” (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2)).

12 Conclusion and Order 13 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: M4 1. The stipulated request to dismiss Defendant Torrez (Doc. 216) is GRANTED and this 1S action is dismissed with prejudice only as to Defendant Torrez. '6 2. Defendant Torrez’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 179) is DENIED as moot. " 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to adjust the docket to reflect dismissal with prejudice of Defendant Torrez.

20 | IT IS SO ORDERED.

71 Dated: _ September 26, 2025 | ) Ww R~ 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE