Hoffman v. I.C. System, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JACOB HOFFMAN, CASE NO. 1:21-cv-01637-AWI-EPG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS 9 v. TRANS UNION, LLC AND EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. 10 I.C. SYSTEM, INC.; TRANS UNION, FROM CASE LLC; and EXPERIAN INFORMATION 11 SOLUTIONS, INC., (Doc. No. 45) 12 Defendants 13 14 15 On May 20, 2022, the Court ordered Defendants I.C. System, Inc. (“I.C. System”), Trans 16 Union, LLC (“Trans Union”), and Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experion”) (collectively, 17 “Defendants”) to show cause in writing within fourteen (14) days of service of its order why 18 Plaintiff Jacob Hoffman’s request to dismiss Trans Union and Experion from this case under Rule 19 41(a)(2) should not be granted. Doc. No. 45 at 1-2 (citing Doc. Nos. 38 & 44). The Court’s order 20 noted that “[f]ailure of any party to respond to this order shall be construed as a non-opposition.” 21 Id. at 2. Defendants’ 14-day deadline to file a written response has passed, and Defendants have 22 not filed nor is the Court aware of any intent by Defendants to file a response explaining why 23 Trans Union or Experion should not be dismissed from this case. 24 At Plaintiff’s request, the actions against Trans Union and Experion may be dismissed by 25 court order if the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) are satisfied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) 26 provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms 27 that the court considers proper.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “The decision to grant a voluntary 28 dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of 1 | the district court.” Navellier v. Sletten, 262 F.3d 923, 938 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Sams v. Beech 2 | Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)). A district court should grant a motion for 3 | voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) “unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some 4 | plain legal prejudice as a result.” Romero v. Citibank U.S.A., 551 F. Supp. 2d 1010, 1015 (E.D. 5 2008) (citing Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). “Legal prejudice” is 6 | “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.” Zanowick v. Baxter 7 |Healthcare Corp., 850 F.3d 1090, 1093 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Westlands Water Dist. v. United 8 | States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). 9 Here, Defendants have not provided any indication before or after their 14-day deadline 10 |that they would “suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result” of dismissing Trans Union and 11 |Experion from this case. Romero, 551 F. Supp. 2d at 1015; Smith, 263 F.3d at 975. In light of the 12 | passed deadline and express warning provided, the Court can only conclude that Defendants do 13 |not oppose and would not be prejudiced by the dismissal of Trans Union and Experion under Rule 14 |41(a)(2). Therefore, it is appropriate to dismiss Trans Union and Experion from this case. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Trans Union and Experion be 16 | dismissed from this case. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: _ September 20, 2022 —= : : — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28