*1 California 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 Motion 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(a)(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 the district upon order of plaintiff’s the instance save which to withdraw time within reasonable upon the court and such terms and condi- voluntary and 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 pur- 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 court 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 Edition § 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 Data 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 to expressed dure. She Cir.1964). (6th action lawsuit Cali- contemplated class raise similar court which would fornia state Circuit has The District of Columbia allegations of discrimination held: District. [41(a)(2)], Under the rule accepting con- has the choice between granted Lau’s motion district court 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 Leland 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 Federal 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, attempt 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 plaintiff 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 attorney’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 conditions 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 applicable. 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 attorney’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. 54 L.Ed.2d 648 judgment court’s and remand the case with (1978), and because a Title VII “is the instruction that district issue Congress” chosen instrument en- “ ruling on a new Lau’s motion for a volun- equal opportunities, force employment ‘a provide tary dismissal and aLau reason- policy Congress considered of the ” period able of time within which refuse highest 418, priority,’ 434 U.S. id. 98 the conditional dismissal with- (quoting S.Ct. at 699 Piggie Newman v. drawing her or motion to ac- 400, 402, Enterprises, Park despite cept imposition 964, 966, (1968) 88 S.Ct. 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 conditions. curiam)), (per has Court concluded that prevailing Title VII should be light of our decision to this attorney’s awarded in court, very “all but matter district we intimate no circumstances,” Paper unusual Albemarle plaintiff may appeal views as to whether 405, 415, Moody, Co. v. U.S. 95 S.Ct. from conditions to 2362, 2370, arbitrary she 45 L.Ed.2d 280 which considers to be or see also un- reasonable, Valley Broadcasting or Dosier v. Miami whether who fails (9th Cir.1981), Corp., dismissal will having regarded “prevailing as consented to the but that a defendant However, only plain conditions attached. this awarded counsel fees when the any subsequent underlying ‘frivolous, will retain over tiffs’ claim is unrea ” appeals of voluntary groundless,’ from orders sonable or Roadway Ex case. press, this Piper, U.S. Inc. 2455, 2462, (1980) 65 L.Ed.2d 488 AND REMANDED. VACATED (quoting Christiansburg, U.S. at 701); 98 S.Ct. at see also Boatowners and REINHARDT, Judge, concurring. Circuit Seattle, Tenants Association v. Port of (9th Cir.1983). Upon I fully concur order. I only motion, separately clarify ruling write task the remand for a new on Lau’s judge district faces on remand. must decide whether or the Title VII stan- Rule here.

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 The 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 another 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.