Zoox v. Navarro
- Lin
- 3:25-cv-03596
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Zoox v. Navarro, Judge Lin granted Zoox’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, rejected Navarro’s requested conditions, and required each party to pay its own costs.
Zoox received dismissal of the action without prejudice. Veronica Navarro did not receive the requested dismissal-related conditions or $175,000 in attorneys’ fees. Both parties must bear their own costs and fees, and the court retained limited jurisdiction concerning enforcement of their settlement agreement.
What happened
In Zoox, Inc. v. Veronica Navarro, Zoox asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to end the case without preventing a possible future lawsuit. Veronica Navarro opposed the request, arguing that dismissal would prevent her from obtaining discovery and evidence needed to seek a decision in her favor.
The court ruled that Navarro’s concern about losing the opportunity to obtain evidence and clear her reputation was not the kind of legal harm that can block a voluntary dismissal. The court also considered the case’s early stage and Zoox’s request that the parties pay their own costs and fees.
Judge Rita F. Lin granted Zoox’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. She denied Navarro’s requested conditions, including her request for $175,000 in attorneys’ fees; each party must bear its own costs and fees, and the court will retain jurisdiction only to dismiss the case with prejudice if a state court determines that the parties’ settlement agreement is enforceable.
The detailed version
- Zoox v. Navarro · No. 3:25-cv-03596
- Lin
- Nov. 8, 2025
Background
Zoox moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss the action without prejudice. Navarro opposed the motion. The court considered the motion without oral argument.
Under Rule 41(a)(2), a court generally should allow voluntary dismissal unless the defendant shows “plain legal prejudice.” The court explained that legal prejudice means harm to a legal interest, claim, or argument; uncertainty from an unresolved dispute or the possibility of future litigation does not qualify.
Navarro’s Opposition
Navarro argued that dismissal would prevent her from conducting discovery to obtain exculpatory evidence and testimony needed to support a renewed motion for summary judgment. She also argued that she needed a merits decision or a dismissal with prejudice to vindicate her reputation.
The court held that these concerns did not establish legal prejudice. The court also noted that the case was at an early stage, which supported granting voluntary dismissal.
Conditions of Dismissal
Rule 41(a)(2) allows a court to impose appropriate terms on a dismissal. Zoox requested that each party pay its own costs and fees and that the court retain jurisdiction for the limited purpose of dismissing the case with prejudice if a state court determined that the parties’ settlement agreement was enforceable. Navarro requested several conditions, including payment of $175,000 in attorneys’ fees.
The court found that Navarro had not justified her proposed conditions or provided evidence supporting the fee request. It also found that a fee award was not appropriate given the early stage of the case and the circumstances under which Zoox brought the suit, which the opinion describes as following Navarro’s admitted download of Zoox’s documents.
Ruling
Judge Rita F. Lin granted Zoox’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court ordered that each party bear its own costs and fees. It retained jurisdiction solely to dismiss the action with prejudice if the parties’ settlement agreement is deemed enforceable in state court. The opinion did not decide the underlying merits of Zoox’s claims or Navarro’s defenses.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.