489 B.R. 837
Bankr. E.D. Cal.2013Background
- Husband and wife Zarate and Camacho pursued debt-related claims against Greenpoint Mortgage in multiple bankruptcy adversary proceedings.
- They filed three adversaries in this court; two were voluntarily dismissed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
- Camacho’s later adversary (No. 12-02608) followed Zarate’s second dismissal (No. 12-02206).
- The two prior dismissals occurred before any answer or summary judgment motion, rendering the second dismissal potentially an adjudication on the merits.
- The court treats Zarate and Camacho as the same plaintiff due to their community-property relationship and aligned interests; the claim arises from the same Greenpoint loan.
- The issue is whether the “two dismissal rule” bars Camacho’s third action under Rule 41(a)(1)(B) and Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 24.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “same claim” under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). | Camacho asserts broader Restatement meaning. | Rule 41(a)(1)(B) should be read narrowly to cover same grounds. | Broader Restatement meaning controls; same claim bars refiling. |
| Whether second dismissal is an adjudication on the merits. | Second dismissal should not bar Camacho. | Second dismissal operates as adjudication on the merits. | Second dismissal bars refiling of same claim. |
| Are Zarate and Camacho the same plaintiff for Rule 41 purposes? | They are virtual representatives; pursuit is cohesive. | They are separate individuals. | They are the same plaintiff for purposes of Rule 41. |
| Application of Semtek to post-2007 Rule 41(a)(1). | Semtek is distinguishable post-restyling. | Restyled rule preserves Semtek framework. | Semtek continues to control construction of Rule 41 after restyling. |
| Scope of the decision and remedy. | Third action should proceed in federal court. | Third action barred; rematch only in state court. | Adversary proceeding is DISMISSED; rematch in state court if any. |
Key Cases Cited
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court 2001) (adjudication on the merits vs. without prejudice; informs claim preclusion)
- Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (Supreme Court 1990) (history and limits of Rule 41(a)(1))
- FDIC v. Alshuler (In re Imperial Corp. of Am.), 92 F.3d 1503 (9th Cir. 1996) (treating related filings as same plaintiff)
- Nordhorn v. Ladish Co., 9 F.3d 1402 (9th Cir. 1993) (multiple plaintiffs treated as same for Rule 41 purposes)
- Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724 (9th Cir. 1991) (community-property related claim aggregation)
- In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc., 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012) (core vs non-core distinction and consent to jurisdiction)
- Moore’s Federal Practice, Moore’s Federal Practice § 41.33 (3d ed. 2012) ( commentary on Rule 41 interpretations)