Gomez v. Ackerman Family Vineyards LLC

Background

On May 26, 2022, the court granted Ackerman Family Vineyards LLC’s motion to dismiss Gomez’s claims, but allowed him to amend the complaint within 20 days. Gomez did not file an amended complaint. On July 7, the defendant asked the court to enter a dismissal with prejudice. Several hours later, Gomez filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The defendant then asked the court to enter a dismissal with prejudice anyway.

Court’s Analysis

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The Ninth Circuit has held that a plaintiff’s right to do this remains available even after the defendant files a motion to dismiss. Because Ackerman Family Vineyards LLC had not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, Gomez’s notice automatically terminated the case.

The court acknowledged that the situation was unusual because the claims had already been dismissed with leave to amend, the deadline to amend had passed, and the defendant had requested dismissal with prejudice. But the court found no authority creating an exception to Rule 41’s language or the Ninth Circuit’s decisions. It therefore concluded that the dismissal was already complete and was without prejudice.

Ruling and Effect

The court recognized the voluntary dismissal without prejudice and ordered the Clerk to close the file. It did not enter the defendant’s requested dismissal with prejudice. The court stated that if Gomez filed the same or a similar case against the defendant, it would be related to this case under the local rules and should be assigned to the same judge. It also noted that Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that a second notice of dismissal involving the same claim operates as an adjudication on the merits if the plaintiff had previously dismissed an action based on or including that claim.