Vlasich v. Clark et al

Filing 8

ORDER signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/4/2012 closing the case due to voluntary dismissal without prejudice. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
13

STEVEN VLASICH,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CLARK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

1:12-cv-00318-LJO-GBC PC
ORDER CLOSING THE CASE
DUE TO VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

14
15
On March 29, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of this case. Although not
16
stated in the notice, the Court construes it as one made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
17
Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).
18
In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:
19
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

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

///

1

the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris
Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal leaves the
parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

2
3
4

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

5
6

No answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been
filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been

7
8
9

served. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under 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

10
11
12

light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
b9ed48

April 4, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2