1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AMERICAN GNC CORPORATION, Case No. 20-cv-2479-BAS-BLM

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES

13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 61) 14 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL INC.,

15 Defendant. 16 17 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Federal 18 Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(2). (Mot., ECF No. 61.) Plaintiff American GNC 19 Corporation brought this patent-infringement action against Defendant Honeywell 20 International Inc. on December 21, 2020. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed its operative 21 Amended Complaint on May 24, 2021. (Am. Compl., ECF No. 29.) Defendant filed its 22 Answer on June 28, 2021, in which it counter-claimed for declaratory judgments of patent 23 invalidity respecting the patents-in-suit. (Answer, ECF No. 33.) 24 On January 31, 2022, after an extended stay in the above-captioned action, the 25 parties jointly moved to dismiss after reaching a settlement agreement. (See Joint Mot., 26 ECF No. 61.) By their Joint Motion, the parties seek dismissal of this matter in its entirety 27 pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Specifically, they seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s patent 28 | |}infringement claims against Defendant with prejudice, and dismissal of Defendant’s 2 counterclaims for declaratory judgment without prejudice. 3 “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the □□□□□□□□□□□ 4 ||request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 ||41(a)(2). “The Ninth Circuit has long held that the decision to grant a voluntary dismissal 6 |/under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the sound discretion of the [d]istrict [c]ourt[.]” 7 || Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing, inter 8 ||alia, Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980); Blue Mountain 9 || Constr. Corp. v. Werner, 270 F.2d 305, 306 (9th Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 931 10 ||(1960)). “A district court should grant a motion for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless 11 defendant can show it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 12 F.3d 972, 975 (2001) (footnote omitted). “Legal prejudice” is “prejudice to some legal 13 |/interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Westlands Water Dist. v. United 14 || States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996). A defendant is not said to suffer “legal prejudice” 15 ||from: (1) “[uJncertainty because a dispute remains unresolved” or the “threat of future 16 || litigation”; (2) the inconvenience of having to defend itself in a different forum; or (3) a 17 ||plaintiff gaining a tactical advantage through dismissal. Smith, 263 F.3d at 976 (citing 18 || Hamilton, 679 F.2d at 145). 19 Because neither Plaintiff nor Defendant identifies any legal prejudice that might 20 ||result from dismissal of this action with prejudice, nor does the Court find any legal 21 || prejudice apparent, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Accordingly, it dismisses with 22 || prejudice Plaintiff's claims of patent infringement in its Amended Complaint and dismisses 23 || without prejudice Defendant’s counterclaims for declaratory judgments of invalidity 24 || respecting certain patents-in-suit prejudice. (ECF No. 61.) The clerk of court shall close 25 case. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 || DATED: February 2, 2022 ( itl A (pha □ 28 United States District Judge