Kingsburg Apple Packers, et al, vs. Ballantine Produce Co., Inc. et al,

Filing 313

ORDER On Plaintiffs In Intervention's Requested Dismissal And Dismissing The Separate Complaints In Intervention Of Commercial Greenvid, S.A. C y D Comerico y Desarrollo Internacional, and Sofruco Alimentos LTDA (Doc. Nos. 53 , 62 , 69 , 296 , 297 , 299 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 11/15/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS INC.
)
D/B/A KINGSBURG ORCHARDS, et. al. )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BALLANTINE PRODUCE Co., Inc., et. al., )
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
)
AND RELATED COMPLAINTS IN
)
INTERVENTION
)
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:09-CV-901-AWI-JLT
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS IN
INTERVENTION’S REQUESTED
DISMISSAL AND DISMISSING THE
SEPARATE COMPLAINTS IN
INTERVENTION OF COMMERCIAL
GREENVIC, S.A., C y D COMERICO
y DESARROLLO INTERNACIONAL,
and SOFRUCO ALIMENTOS LTDA
(Doc. Nos. 53,62, 69, 296, 297, 299)

18
19

Commercial Greenvic, S.A., C y D Comercio y Desarrollo Internacional, and Sofruco

20

Alimentos Ltda., each filed separate complaints in intervention in this case on July 29, 2009.

21

See Doc. Nos. 53, 62, 69. On September 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge issued three orders to

22

show cause why these complaints in intervention should not be dismissed for failure to

23

prosecute. See Doc. Nos. 296, 297, and 299. The Magistrate Judge required these intervenors to

24

either show in writing or request dismissal of their complaints in intervention. See id. On

25

October 5, 2012, the intervenors filed a joint response. See Doc. No. 304. The omnibus

26

response was a request to dismiss their respective complaints without prejudice. See id. Since

27

October 5, 2012, there have been no further filings regarding the intervenor’s respective

28

complaints, nor has their been opposition to the requested dismissal.

1

In light of the above, and in the absence of any apparent prejudice to the defendant in

2

intervention, the Court will dismiss the intervenor complaints without prejudice. See Fed. R.

3

Civ. Pro. 41(a).

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the complaints in intervention filed by

5

Commercial Greenvic, S.A. (Doc. No. 69), C y D Comercio y Desarrollo Internacional (Doc. No.

6

53), and Sofruco Alimentos Ltda. (Doc. No. 62) are each DISMISSED without prejudice

7

pursuant to Rule 41(a).

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10
11

Dated:
November 15, 2012
ciem0h
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2