San Diego Coastkeeper v. Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER, et al., Case No. 21-cv-01138-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 11) 14 PAVEMENT RECYCLING SYSTEMS, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 11.) Plaintiffs San Diego 19 Coastkeeper and the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation brought this action against 20 Defendant Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc. on June 21, 2021 pursuant to the citizen suit 21 enforcement provision of the Federal Water Pollution Act (“Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. 22 §§ 1251 et seq. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant: (1) owns and 23 operates a facility from which it “discharged and continues to discharge polluted 24 stormwater” in violation of the Clean Water Act and (2) “violated and continues to violate 25 the filing, monitoring, reporting, discharge and management practice requirements, and 26 other procedural and substantive requirements of California’s General Permit for 27 Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities, which, in and of itself, 28 1 also constitute ongoing and continuous violations of the Clean Water Act. (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.) 2 Defendant answered the Complaint on September 22, 2021, denying the factual allegations 3 and legal claims against it. (ECF No. 9.) 4 The parties settled on October 11, 2021, thereby resolving the dispute underlying the 5 Complaint. (Mot. ¶ 2; Settlement Agreement, Ex. 1 to id., ECF No. 11-1.) In consideration 6 of, and consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties jointly moved to 7 dismiss this action with prejudice. (Id. ¶ 3.) 8 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 9 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 10 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 11 under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 12 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 13 alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 14 Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 15 (1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 16 a defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 17 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal 18 interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 19 States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” 20 from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 21 litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 22 plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 23 Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 I Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 2 ||prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 3 ||GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 11.) The clerk of 4 court shall close this case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 A , 7 || DATED: October 14, 2021 Ypilag (Lyphaa. 6 g United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28