Morris v. Lush Retail ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOSEPH MORRIS, CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05242-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 12 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 LUSH RETAIL, 14 Defendant. 15 16 On April 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed with the Court a document stating that he “desires to 17 dismiss” his case and requests that “all matters in the above case be dismissed without 18 prejudice.” (Dkt. No. 7.) The Court construes this as a request for voluntary dismissal of 19 Plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). As relevant here, Rule 20 41(a)(2) provides that: 21 ... an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper ... Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal 22 under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice. 23 24 1 Rule 41(a)(2) allows a plaintiff, “pursuant to an order of the court, and subject to any 2 terms and conditions the court deems proper,” to dismiss an action without prejudice at any time. 3 Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Stevedoring 4 Servs. of Am. v. Armilla Int'l B.V., 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1989)). 5 A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal unless a defendant can 6 show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result. Waller v. Fin. Corp. of America, 7 828 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987). Legal prejudice has been defined as “prejudice to some legal 8 interest, some legal claim, some legal argument.... [u]ncertainty because a dispute remains 9 unresolved is not legal prejudice.” Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97. Nor does the expense incurred in 10 defending against a lawsuit amount to legal prejudice. (Id.) 11 Further, legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will be 12 inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical 13 advantage by that dismissal. Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 14 Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir.1982)). 15 Defendant does not object to Plaintiff’s motion. (Dkt. No. 8.) 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without 17 prejudice. 18 Dated this 16th day of May, 2022. 19 A 20 David G. Estudillo 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24