Perez v. Cogburn

1 .

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT GF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 DANIEL JAY PEREZ, Plaintiff, CASE NO. C18-1800-JLR-BAT vy. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 11 VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL CALVIN COGBURN, et al., .

Defendant.

14 Plaintiff, Daniel Jay Perez, proceeds pro se in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, || Defendants have filed answers to plaintiff's amended complaint. Dkts. 40, 41. On September 11, 16 2019, plaintiff moved to voluntarily dismiss defendant Nora Bloomingdale from this action || pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 “without attorney’s fees or costs.” Dkt, 70. None of the defendants 1g || opposed or otherwise responded to the motion.

19 On October 9, 2019, plaintiff moved to “supplement” his motion to voluntarily dismiss 20 defendant Bloomingdale to fix a typographical error in his original motion. Dkt. 73. Specifically, || plaintiff indicates that the motion should read “[t]here should be no award of attorney’s fee’s || [sic] or any cost” and that his previous motion had omitted the word “no” from this sentence. □□□ || On October 10, 2019, defendant Bloomingdale filed a response to plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. 70) and motion for leave to supplement his motion to dismiss (Dkt. 73) stating she “does ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL - 1 || not oppose the plaintiff's motion to dismiss her from this lawsuit, and she does not intend to || pursue attorney’s fees and costs due to plaintiffs willingness to voluntarily dismiss her from this ‘3 || lawsuit.” Dt. 74.

4 Once an answer has been filed to the operative complaint, a plaintiff may dismiss an || action only by court order and on terms that the court considers proper. See Fed. R. Civ. P. || 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal under || Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the District Court[.]” Hamilton v. Firestone || Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir, 1982), At this point, although defendants || have filed answers and discovery has commenced, no dispositive motions have been filed.

10 || Under the circumstances, at this relatively early stage of the case, and considering that defendant || Bloomingdale does net oppose the plaintiffs motions and none of the other defendants have || filed opposition to the motions, the court is persuaded that defendant Bloomingdale will not || suffer any legal prejudice by the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. See id. 14 Accordingly, plaintiff's motions for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 70) and to supplement the || motion for voluntary dismissal (Dkt. 73) are GRANTED, Plaintiffs claims against defendant || Bloomingdale are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and without attorneys fees or costs to || either side. See Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996) || (Imposition of costs and fees as a condition for dismissing without prejudice is not mandatory).

DATED this qa day of Ochobya. , 2919, no 23 James L. Robart United States|District Court Judge ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL - 2