Adams v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al, No. 6:2012cv01476 - Document 25 (D. Or. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION ORDER: Denying as moot Motion to Dismiss 12 ; Denying as moot Request for Judicial Notice 14 ; Granting Motion to Dismiss 18 . This action is dismissed without prejudice. Judgment shall issue accordingly. Signed on 11/26/12 by Chief Judge Ann L. Aiken. (ljb) Modified for clarity of the record on 11/27/2012 (ljb).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON MELISSA ADAMS, an individual, Case No. 6:12-cv-1476-AA Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA, a foreign business corporation, et al., Defendants. AIKEN, Chief Judge: Plaintiff filed suit in state court alleging a violation of Or. Rev. Stat.ยง 87.035(1), unlawful trade practices, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. action to federal court and moved for dismissal preemption and failure to state a claim. filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy Defendants removed the on grounds of Plaintiff subsequently proceeding and now moves for voluntarily dismissal of this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a) ( 2) . Defendants oppose the motion and argue 1 - OPINION AND ORDER l l 'I I I that the court should decide their motion to dismiss on the merits. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), once a defendant has filed an answer, an action may be dismissed only by court order and on terms that the court "considers proper." Fed. 41 (a) (2). R. Civ. P. "A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a) (2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result." Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001). Legal prejudice "means 'prejudice to some legal interest, argument."' Id. at 976 States, 100 F. 3d 94, 97 some legal claim, some legal (quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. United (9th Cir. 1996)). "Uncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved is not legal prejudice." Westlands, 100 F.3d at 97. I exercise prejudice. interests I of my agree discretion to dismiss with plaintiff that this action dismissal without furthers the judicial economy and efficiency given her pending bankruptcy proceeding. Further, should plaintiff's claims arise in the bankruptcy proceeding or a related adversary proceeding, defendants may present the arguments they raised in their motion to dismiss. Thus, I find no plain legal prejudice to defendants. See id. " [ P] lain legal prejudice does not result merely because the defendant will be inconvenienced by having to defend in another forum or where a plaintiff would gain a tactical advantage by that dismissal.") . 2 - OPINION AND ORDER CONCLUSION Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to dismiss (doc. 18) is GRANTED and this case is dismissed without prejudice. All pending motions (docs. 12, 14) are DENIED as moot. Judgment shall issue accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this ~~ of November, 2012. Ann Aiken United States District Judge 3 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
