Pimentel

Pimentel v. SeaWorld

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJune 3, 20253:24-cv-00127California4,684 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALBERTO PIMENTAL, et al., Case No.: 3:24-cv-00127-JAH-SBC

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

v. MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DENYING

SEA WORLD PARKS, INC., et al.,

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO SET AN

Defendants. OSC RE: SANCTIONS

16 [ECF No. 34] INTRODUCTION Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Alberto Pimental’s and Guadalupe Ramirez’ (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Motion to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice and Motion to Set an Order to Show Cause Re: Sanctions. ECF No. 34 (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Defendant SeaWorld LLC1 filed a Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion on March 24, 2025. ECF No. 35 (“Opposition” or “Opp’n”). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a Reply on April 2, 2025. ECF No. 38 (“Reply”). On April 3, 2025, the Court determined this matter is suitable for adjudication on the briefing and without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.