Chevron Intellectual Property LLC et al v. Bhullar

Filing 14

STIPULATION and ORDER dismissing case without prejudice signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/22/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 CHEVRON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, and CHEVRON U.S.A., INC., ) ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) RAJPAL SINGH BHULLAR, an ) individual dba CIRCLE 7 GAS & ) FOOD MART; and DOES 1-10 ) Inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:11-CV- 01551 AWI BAM ORDER CLOSING THE CASE DUE TO VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 16 On December 21, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of this case without 17 prejudice. This notice is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). 18 In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained: 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 60910 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportHarris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal 1 leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id. 2 3 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been 4 5 6 filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. Because Plaintiffs have exercised their right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under 7 8 Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light 9 10 of Plaintiffs’ Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 Dated: ciem0h December 22, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?