Pyle, II v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.

Filing 10

ORDER CLOSING THE CASE Due To Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 6/7/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
RONALD G. PYLE, II,
8
9
10
11
12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES,
)
INC.,,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:12-CV-00361 AWI DLB
ORDER CLOSING THE CASE
DUE TO VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

13
14
On June 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of this case with prejudice.
15
Although not stated in the notice, the Court construes it as one made pursuant to Federal Rule of
16
Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).
17
In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:
18
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
leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

1
2

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
No answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been

3
filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been
4
5

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

6

41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

7
8

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light
of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal with prejudice.

9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
10
11

Dated:
0m8i78

June 7, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2