Coleman et al v. Boston Scientific Corporation

Filing 86

ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Adjust Docket to Reflect Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs Mary Bower and Kathleen Paison, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/22/2020. Mary Bower and Kathleen Paison terminated. (Rivera, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
PAMELA COLEMAN, et al.,

Case No. 1:10-cv-01968-AWI-SAB

11
Plaintiffs,

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO ADJUST DOCKET TO REFLECT
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL BY
PLAINTIFFS MARY BOWER AND
KATHLEEN PAISON

12
v.
13
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,
14
Defendant.

(ECF Nos. 30, 82, 83, 84)

15
16
17

This action was initially filed on October 20, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) On February 22, 2012,

18 the action was transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 into the Southern District of West Virginia as
19 part of Multidistrict Litigation Case No. 2326 (“MDL 2326”). (ECF No. 73.) On May 8, 2020,
20 the action was remanded back to the Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 74.)
21

On May 19, 2020, a notice of voluntary dismissal was filed by Plaintiffs Mary Bower and

22 Kathleen Paison pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF
23 No. 82.) Upon review of the docket, the Court found Plaintiffs Mary Bower and Kathleen
24 Paison had already filed a notice of dismissal on June 14, 2011. (ECF No. 30.) On May 21,
25 2020, the Court ordered counsel for Plaintiffs to file a statement notifying the Court as to
26 whether the notice of dismissal was thus moot or whether subsequent events in the action
27 necessitated such filing. (ECF No. 83.) On May 21, 2020, counsel filed a notice of errata
28 indicating that the May 19, 2020 notice was moot as these Plaintiffs have already dismissed their

1

1 action against Defendant pursuant to the notice of dismissal filed on June 14, 2011. (ECF No.
2 84.)
“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his

3

4 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ”
5 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
6 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has
7 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet
8 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th
9 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required,
10 the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the
11 district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193
12 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to adjust the docket and

13

14 terminate Mary Bower and Kathleen Paison as Plaintiffs in this action pursuant to the voluntary
15 dismissal filed on June 14, 2011 (ECF No. 30), pursuant to Rule 41(a).
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated:

May 22, 2020
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2