Tulare Golf Course, LLC v. Vantage Tag, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TULARE GOLF COURSE, LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-0505 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GRANTING THE 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS AND TERMINATING DEFENDANT ARROW CAPITAL 14 VANTAGE TAG, INC., et al., SOLUTIONS, INC, AND CROSS- DEFENDANT VANTAGE TAG, INC. 15 Defendants. (Docs. 38, 41) 16 17 ARROW CAPITAL SOLUTIONS, INC., 18 Cross-Claimant, 19 v. 20 VANTAGE TAG, INC., 21 Cross-Defendant. 22 23 Tulare Golf Course filed a first amended complaint against Vantage Tag, Inc.; Arrow 24 Capital Solutions, Inc.; and U.S. Bank National Association. (Doc. 11.) Arrow Capital Solutions 25 filed an answer and a crossclaim against Vantage Tag. (Doc. 17.) Tulare Golf Course and Arrow 26 Capital Solutions filed a request for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 41(a)(2). (Doc. 38.) Specifically, Tulare Golf Course requests dismissal without prejudice of its 1 without prejudice of its cross-claim against Vantage Tag. (See id.) U.S. Bank filed an opposition 2 to the request. (Doc. 40.) 3 The assigned magistrate judge found the requested voluntary dismissals would not result 4 in “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” (Doc. 41 at 3, 5 4, citing Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996).) Therefore, the 6 magistrate judge recommended the Court grant Tulare Golf Course’s request for dismissal 7 without prejudice of its complaint against Arrow Capital Solutions, and Arrow Capital Solutions’ 8 request for dismissal without prejudice of its crossclaim against Vantage Tag. (Id. at 5.) 9 The Findings and Recommendations notified the parties that any objections were due 10 within 14 days. (Id.) The Court advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the 11 specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 12 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014).) No objections were filed, and the time to do so has expired. 13 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 14 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the findings and recommendation 15 are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 16 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued April 22, 2022 (Doc. 41), are 17 ADOPTED in full. 18 2. Plaintiff Tulare Golf Course’s request for dismissal without prejudice of its 19 complaint against Defendant Arrow Capital Solutions (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. 20 3. Cross-Claimant Arrow Capital Solutions’ request for dismissal without prejudice 21 of its crossclaim against Cross-Defendant Vantage Tag (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. 22 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to update the docket and TERMINATE Arrow 23 Capital Solutions, Inc., as both a defendant and cross-claimant, and Vantage Tag, 24 Inc., as a cross-defendant only1; and 25 /// 26 /// 27 1 1 5. The case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Tulare Golf Course’s case 2 against the remaining defendants. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ May 22, 2022 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28