*1 Cаlifornia some members of the group or sale of records California. specif-
district court thus could not exercise
ic over either Breeland or The Ridge Boys, Inc.
Oak to allege
Because the Scotts failed facts support the
that would district court’s exer- personal jurisdiction
cise of over defend- Ridge Boys,
ants Breeland and The Oak properly dismissed personal jurisdiction.
the case for lack of
AFFIRMED. LAU,
Sami Rebekah on behalf of herself other
plaintiffs, Plaintiff/Appellant, UNIFIED
GLENDORA SCHOOL
DISTRICT, Defendant/Appellee.
United States Court of
Argued and Submitted Oct. Hunt, Cochran-Bond,
A. Thomas
Walter
Cochran-Bond,
Cal.,
&
Angeles,
Hunt
Los
plaintiff/appellant.
Covert,
Spencer
Jr.,
Covert,
E.
Parker &
Ana, Cal.,
Santa
for defendant/appellee.
*2
BEEZER,
paid to the
District
Cir
to be
School
and
REINHARDT
Before
$12,000.
NIELSEN,*
of
Lau seeks to
District
amount
Judges,
and
cuit
attorneys’ fees term or condition of the
the
Judge.
voluntary
prejudice.1
dismissal without
ORDER
Option
Mоtion for
to Withdraw
Voluntary
Upon
appeal the district
Dismissal
A
seeks
as a term
Attachment of Conditions
award of
her motion
granting of
or condition
41(a)(2)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
Civil Procedure
Rule of
under Federal
that,
provides
after the defendant has filed
of her
41(а)(2)
voluntary dismissal
summary judg-
an answer or motion for
this matter to
action. We
Title VII
ment,
at
“an action shall not be dismissed
plaintiff a
to allow the
thе district
upon order of
plaintiff’s
the
instance save
which to withdraw
time within
reasonable
upon
the court and
such terms and condi-
voluntary
аnd
dismissal
motion for a
proper.”
as the court deems
tions
consent to
proceed to trial or
41(a)(2) in
language
The
of Rule
of conditions.
attachment
despite the
of the action is
dicates that the dismissal
Background
contingent
“upon
of the court”
both
order
рur-
filed this action
Rebakah Lau
Sami
“upon
conditions as
such terms and
and
706(f)(3)
of the
of Title VII
to section
suant
words,
proper.” In other
the сourt deems
1964, 42
Rights
of
U.S.C.
Act
Civil
cannot take effect
the
dismissal
hiring
2000e-5(f)(3),alleging that certain
§
entered and
until a court order has been
by
the Glendora Uni-
engaged
practices
imposed by the
terms and conditions
District”)
(“School
had
District
fied School
grants
complied
are
with. This
discriminatory impact upon women seek-
a
option
refuse the volun
positions.
in administrative
ing employment
imposed
if the conditions
are
tary dismissal
certification on behalf
for class
Her motion
Procedure,
onerous.2 27 Federal
Law
too
was denied
of women
62:499,
(1984);
9 C.
yer’s Editiоn §
delay.
of
grounds
on the
district court
Miller,
Practice and
Wright & A.
Federal
(1971);
2366, at 177-81
see
Procedure §
to dismiss the
Subsequently, Lau moved
Cory. v. Control Datа
Instrument
Scam
to Rule
prejudice pursuant
without
action
Cir.1972)(dic
(7th
Cory., 458 F.2d
of
Proce-
41(a)(2)
the Federal Rules Civil
ta);
Cory., 327
v. Felmont Oil
Scholl
join
her intent tо
expressed
dure. She
Cir.1964).
(6th
action lawsuit
Cali-
contemplated class
raise similar
court which would
fornia state
Circuit has
The District of Columbiа
allegations of discrimination
held:
District.
[41(a)(2)],
Under the rule
accepting
con-
has the choice between
granted Lau’s motion
district сourt
The
and, if he
obtaining dismissal
and
dismissal,
attorney’s fees
ditions
and assessed
for
tions,
Nielsen,
district court to
it is
for the
States
C.
United
Honorable Lеland
prejudice.
Davis v.
Judge
District of Cali-
the Southern
dismiss the action with
District
fornia,
(9th Cir.),
sitting
designation.
McLaughlin,
denied,
13 L.Ed.2d
cert.
Although
order in the in-
district court’s
Fеderal Practice
see also 5 Moore’s
whether the
stant case did not indicate
1985).
(2d
41.05[1],
ed.
at 41-59 to
1f
prejudice, Rule
or without
was with
Nothing
opinion
that
in this
disturbs
stated
"[ujnless
specified provides otherwise
accepts
holding.
aWhen
order,
prejudice.”
dismissal ...
is without
conditions,
attеmpt
does
dismissal with
yet
re
Although
question of whether
conditions,
given
comply
refuse a conditional
it would
be
must
fuses to
with
addressed in
has not been
one
proper
the dismissal from
to convert
still
circuit,
long
held that where
we have
prejudice.
prejudice
with
to one
without
plаintiff obtains a
comply
the condi
with
and fails
feels that the conditions
too
disposition
are
burden-
Given our
of this
we do
some, withdrawing his dismissal
motion not
propriety
reach
proceeding
on the
with
mer-
particular,
express
award.
we
its.
regarding
no
view
awarding
applied
аttorney’s fees as
Corp. v.
Transamerica
condition
a Rule
*3
364,
(D.C.Cir.1981) (the
F.2d
court
underlying
where the
suit is a
VII
Title
permitted
an
from a conditional vol-
Ordinarily
action.
the decision to award
plaintiff
untary dismissal
who had
attorney’s
fees
Rule
under
is a
either
failed
to consent
the conditiоns or
discretion,
matter within the trial court’s
motion).
withdraw
and the
governing
normal rules
a court’s
However,
case,
in the instant
exercise of its
аpplicable.
discretion are
grant
expressly
court did not
district
v.
Corp.,
Sams
Beech
625
Aircraft
refusing
pay
273,
(9th Cir.1980). However,
F.2d
277
fees,
of attоrney’s
withdrawing
award
Supreme
Court
severely
has
pro
motion
circumscribed the discretion of courts to
ceeding
Furthermore,
litigate
her claim.
attorney’s
award
in
fees
Title VII cases.
previously
we have not
held that such an
Congress
Because
encourage
intended to
option must
be afforded to a
when
vigorous
enforcement of Title VII’s
impose
a district court seeks to
terms or
provisions by making
bring
it easier to
upon voluntary
conditions
dismissal.
action, see,
Title
e.g.,
VII
Christiansburg
is
Consequently,
appropriate
it
under
412,
EEOC,
420,
Garment Co. v.
434 U.S.
these circumstances to vacate
district
422,
694, 699, 700,
98 S.Ct.
dard not reach the wheth-
We also do
er, at all if a fees award $12,- in the amount of an award represented justified. That award
000 is costs nearly or all of the by the School District expended Thе district court did
defending the claim. award, nor reached its explain how it any whether
did it determine product produced in this
District’s litigation would be useful future *4 Corp. v. Trans- Lau. See GAF
involving
america
(D.C.Cir.1981). grant- Where
ed a pursue a related action de- forum, in anоther the defendant
fendant entitled to reimbursement of costs preparing prod-
legal fees incurred continuing be useful
uct Cheshire,
litigation. McLaughlin v. (D.C.Cir.1982); 369; 5
Corp., 665 F.2d at Moore’s Federal 41.06, at 41-78.
Practice
Rosendo CHAVEZ-RAMIREZ Chavez, de
Zenaida Calderon
Petitioners, AND
IMMIGRATION NATURALIZA- SERVICE, Respondent.
TION Court of Sept. 1985.*
Submitted 24, 1986. 3(f). 34(a); unanimously App.P. Ninth Circuit Rule case suitable finds this argument. disposition without oral Fed.R.