Opinion
No. C-00-4697 VRW
May 29, 2002
ORDER
Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Co (MetLife) has moved for voluntary dismissal of its action. Defendant Bounna Baythavong opposes this dismissal and requests that if the motion is granted, the dismissal be with prejudice and the court condition the dismissal on reimbursement of costs and attorney fees.
Absent plain legal prejudice, a motion for voluntary dismissal should be granted. See Westlands Water District v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 96 (9th Cir 1996). Baythavong states in his opposition that he has been denied the opportunity to obtain a legal victory, his reputation has been significantly damaged and he has incurred substantial costs in his defense of this action. None of these facts amounts to legal prejudice, because none of them affects an ascertainable legal interest. See id at 96-98. Thus, dismissal of the action without prejudice is warranted.
In his opposition to MetLife's motion, Baythavong requests costs and attorney fees. See Def Opp (Doc # 26) at 3. The court has discretion to impose terms or conditions on a voluntary dismissal; typically, one such condition is that the dismissing plaintiff pay the defendant's costs and attorney fees in defending the action. See Stevedoring Services of America v. Armilla Int'l BV, 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir 1989).
In this case, the court finds it appropriate not to impose costs on MetLife as a condition of dismissal. MetLife has requested dismissal at an early stage of the litigation; up to this point, the parties have focused on settlement and conducted little discovery. There is also no evidence of bad faith on the part of MetLife. Cf BD v. DeBuone, 193 F.R.D. 117, 125 (SD N.Y. 2000) ("Courts within this circuit have refused to award fees and costs following a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal absent circumstances evincing bad faith or vexatiousness on the part of the plaintiff."). MetLife asserts that a primary motive for suing defendant was to enforce the non-compete clause in the contract; this clause has since lapsed, making any injunctive remedy moot. Finally, because the non-compete agreement has lapsed, it is highly unlikely that the litigation will recommence; the defendant will not have to pay for his defense a second time. Accord Cauley v. Wilson, 754 F.2d 769, 772 (7th Cir 1985) (awarding fees only for costs incurred that would be duplicated in subsequent litigation of the same claim). Thus, the court orders that no fees or costs shall be imposed on the plaintiff.
In summary, the court GRANTS plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc # 25) without restriction and DISMISSES the action without prejudice. The clerk is directed to close the file and terminate all pending motions.