Cheryl Ann Hughes v. Fiat Chrysler Automotive

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER 13 OCAHO no. 1336 December 17, 2019 CHERYL ANN HUGHES, Complainant, v. FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOTIVE, Respondent. 8 U.S.C. § 1324b Proceeding OCAHO Case No. 2020B00003 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE On October 11, 2019, Complainant, Cheryl Ann Hughes, filed a complaint against Respondent, Fiat Chrysler Automotive, alleging that Respondent refused to hire her based on her national origin and citizenship status, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. Respondent filed an answer on November 21, 2019. On December 2, 2019, Complainant filed a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice seeking to dismiss her complaint.

Respondent did not file a response to the motion. The OCAHO rules “explicitly provide for dismissal of complaints under three circumstances: (1) ‘[w]here the parties or their authorized representatives or their counsel have entered into a settlement agreement’ (28 C.F.R. § 68.14); (2) when a complaint or a request for hearing is abandoned by the party or parties who filed it (28 C.F.R. § 68.37(b ; (3) by default (28 C.F.R. § 68.37(c .” LeEdwards v. Kumagai Int’l USA Corp., 4 OCAHO no. 609, 197, 200 (1994). The OCAHO rules do not specifically cover a voluntary dismissal by the complainant, but the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be used as a general guideline for any situation not covered by the OCAHO rules, the Administrative Procedure Act, any other applicable statute, executive order, or regulation. 28 C.F.R. § 68.1.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the Court may, in certain circumstances, order dismissal of an action at the plaintiff’s request. “Such an order is proper only if a plaintiff has made a motion for dismissal.” LeEdwards, 4 OCAHO no. 609 at 200. The Court “should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a [respondent] can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Legal prejudice is “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Uncertainty because a dispute 13 OCAHO no. 1336 remains unresolved” or “the threat of future litigation which causes uncertainty” does not constitute plain legal prejudice. Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996); see United States v. Johnny & Leona Entertainment, LLC, 13 OCAHO no. 1325, 1-2 (2019).

Respondent did not file a response to the motion, and there is otherwise no indication that Respondent will suffer prejudice if the Court grants the dismissal without prejudice. This case is still in the initial pleadings stage, Respondent has only filed an answer, the parties have not yet submitted prehearing statements, and the undersigned has not held a prehearing conference. Complainant indicates that she does not wish to pursue this matter any further. As such, the Court finds that Respondent will not suffer legal prejudice if the Court grants the motion.

The Court finds that Complainant’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice is GRANTED. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Dated and entered on December 17, 2019. __________________________________ Jean C. King Chief Administrative Law Judge Appeal Information In accordance with the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(g)(1), this Order shall become final upon issuance and service upon the parties, unless, as provided for under the provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(i), any person aggrieved by such Order files a timely petition for review of that Order in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the violation is alleged to have occurred or in which the employer resides or transacts business, and does so no later than 60 days after the entry of such Order. Such a petition must conform to the requirements of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. 2