Pacific Rim Land Development, LLC v. Imperial Pacific International (CNMI), LLC
1:19-cv-00016
| N. Mar. I. | Feb 28, 2023Background
- Pacific Rim sued IPI asserting three claims: breach of construction contract, breach of a promissory note, and unjust enrichment.
- Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Pacific Rim on the promissory-note claim; amended judgment entered and affirmed by the Ninth Circuit; funds were released to satisfy that judgment.
- The promissory-note claim was made final under Rule 54(b), leaving two remaining claims pending (breach of contract and unjust enrichment).
- Pacific Rim moved to dismiss the entire action with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); the court initially denied without prejudice, saying Rule 41 governs entire actions and Rule 15 is the usual means to drop remaining claims.
- Pacific Rim sought reconsideration; the court revisited an intra-circuit split about whether Rule 41 may be used to dismiss less-than-all claims and concluded the Rule 54(b) judgment severed the adjudicated claim.
- The court granted reconsideration and allowed dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), dismissed the action with prejudice, and denied as moot IPI’s pending relief requests.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pacific Rim may dismiss the action with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) after partial final judgment on one claim | Pacific Rim: Rule 54(b) made the promissory-note claim final and severed, so Rule 41(a)(2) may dismiss the remaining action with prejudice | IPI: Court’s prior ruling was correct; Rule 41 generally governs entire actions and Rule 15 is the proper mechanism to drop some claims; Pacific Rim’s request is gamesmanship | Court: Rule 54(b) severed the adjudicated claim, so the Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal of the remaining action is appropriate; dismissal with prejudice granted |
| Whether Rule 41 can be used to eliminate fewer-than-all claims where some claims already have final judgment | Pacific Rim: Finalized claim means the remaining complaint constitutes the entire action for Rule 41 purposes | IPI: Authorities Pacific Rim cites are distinguishable and Rule 15 remains proper to drop remaining claims | Court: Intra-circuit precedents conflict; given Rule 54(b) severance, dismissal of the remaining action under Rule 41 was proper |
| Proper remedy after interlocutory order denying Rule 41 dismissal | Pacific Rim: Motion for reconsideration; court has inherent power to revisit interlocutory orders | IPI: Opposed reconsideration and characterized conduct as abusive | Court: Exercised plenary power to reconsider; granted reconsideration for cause seen sufficient |
| Effects on pending motions and remaining claims | Pacific Rim: Dismissal should be with prejudice, ending the case | IPI: Opposed dismissal; sought other relief | Court: Dismissed case with prejudice and denied as moot IPI’s pending motions |
Key Cases Cited
- Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2005) (Rule 41 generally governs dismissal of entire actions, not individual claims)
- Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988) (a plaintiff may not use Rule 41(a)(1)(i) to unilaterally dismiss a single claim from a multi-claim complaint)
- Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 1997) (plaintiff may dismiss some claims or defendants through Rule 41(a)(1) notice)
- Ruiz v. Snohomish Cty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) (district courts have wide discretion to determine whether dismissal is with or without prejudice)
- City of Los Angeles, Harbor Div. v. Santa Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders)
- Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 905 F.3d 565 (9th Cir. 2018) (Rule 54(b) requires an ultimate disposition of an individual claim to be final)
- James v. Price Stern Sloan, 283 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (Rule 54(b) severance is consistent with the final judgment rule)