Whittle v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAWN WHITTLE, Case No. 21-cv-0386-BAS-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 19) 14 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action with prejudice 18 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 19.) 19 Plaintiff Dawn Whittle brought this action against Defendant Unum Life Insurance 20 Company of America on March 4, 2021 seeking disability benefits under the Employee 21 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et. seq. (Compl., 22 ECF No. 1.) Defendant answered the Complaint on April 30, 2021, denying the legal 23 claims against it. (ECF No. 6.) On December 8, 2021, the parties jointly moved to dismiss 24 this action in its entirety with prejudice. (Mot. 1.) 25 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 26 request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 28 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 || a 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 Defendant does 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. 19.) The clerk of 17 court shall close this case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 / yy 20 || DATED: December 8, 2021 ( yi uA (Liphan 6 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28