Rutiaga v. Cook

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — ANDREI RUTIAGA, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:23-cv-01161-GMN-EJY — 5 — vs. ) 6 ) ORDER GRANTING ERIC LEE COOK, et. al., ) MOTION TO DISMISS 7 ) Defendants. ) — 8 — ) 9 Pending before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13), filed by Plaintiff Andrei 10 Rutiaga. Defendants filed their Non-Opposition, (ECF No. 14). Because Defendants will not 11 suffer legal prejudice as a result of this case’s dismissal, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion 12 to Dismiss. 13 This suit arises out of a vehicle collision that occurred when Defendant Cook rear-ended 14 Plaintiff’s vehicle. (See generally Compl., ECF No. 1). Defendants filed an Answer to 15 Plaintiff’s Complaint, (ECF No. 11), and Plaintiff moved to dismiss the suit under Fed. Rule 16 Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2), (ECF No. 13). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), this action 17 “may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court 18 considers proper.” 19 “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under [FRCP] Rule 20 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” 21 Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Waller v. Fin. Corp. of Am., 828 22 F.2d 579, 583 (9th Cir. 1987)). Although the Ninth Circuit has not adopted a definitive list of 23 factors for determining legal prejudice, “courts have looked to several factors, including: (1) the 24 defendant’s effort and expense involved in preparing for trial; (2) excessive delay and lack of 25 diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action; (3) an insufficient explanation of 1 the need to seek a dismissal; and (4) a motion for summary judgment has been brought by the 2 defendant.” Id. (citing United States v. Berg, 190 F.R.D. 539, 543 (E.D. Cal. 1999)). 3 None of the factors are present here. This case is at an early stage in the litigation, and 4 the parties have not conducted depositions nor completed other discovery. (Mot. Dismiss 3:4– 5 5). Neither party alleges that Plaintiff delayed the prosecution of this action, and Defendants 6 have not brought a motion for summary judgment. Defendants also do not oppose the 7 dismissal of the action. (See Non-Opposition, ECF No. 14). Moreover, Defendants’ Answer 8 did not include any counterclaims. Thus, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary 9 Dismissal without prejudice. 10 Accordingly, 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13), is 12 GRANTED. 13 The Clerk of Court is kindly requested to close the case. 14 Dated this _1_8__ day of June, 2024. — 15 — 16 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 17 United States District Court — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 —