Dalfio v. Tran ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VICTOR DALFIO, Case No. 21-cv-00760-BAS-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 12) 14 KHANG TRAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 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. 12.) Plaintiff Victor Dalfio 19 brought this action in federal court on April 16, 2021 against Defendants Khang Tran and 20 Phuoc Tran, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 21 § 12181, et seq., and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) 22 Defendants answered the Complaint on July 6, 2021. (ECF Nos. 6–7.) At an Early Neutral 23 Evaluation Conference before Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal in September of 2021, 24 the parties agreed to settle and, thus, dispose of the case. (ECF Nos. 10–11.) The parties 25 jointly moved to dismiss this action shortly thereafter. 26 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 27 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 1 |funder Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]Jourt[.]” 2 || Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 3 Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 4 || Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 5 ||(1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 6 defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 7 || 263 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal 8 |/interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 9 || States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal preyudice”’ 10 from: (1) “[u]ncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 11 litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 12 || plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 13 || Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 14 Because Defendants do not identify, nor does the Court find apparent, any legal 15 ||prejudice that might result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, the Court 16 ||GRANTS the Motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. (ECF No. 12.) The clerk of 17 court shall close this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 /\ oY 20 || DATED: October 27, 2021 ( itl A (Liphan 6 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28