Harring v. Martens

Filing 15

ORDER CLOSING CASE in Light of Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/23/2014. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DAVID HARRING, 9 CASE NO. 1:14-CV-310 AWI BAM Plaintiff ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE 10 v. 11 CHRISTOPHER MARTENS, 12 Defendant (Doc. No. 14) 13 14 15 On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. See Doc. No. 14. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads: (A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained: 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 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 2 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. 3 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 No answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been 1 5 6 filed, nor does it appear that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice 7 8 9 10 under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: September 23, 2014 14 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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?