Moore v. Mann et al

Filing 19

ORDER Directing Clerk Of Court To Administratively CLOSE CASE, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/29/2014. CASE CLOSED.(Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

RONALD MOORE,

12
13

Plaintiff.
v.

14
15
16

DARSHAN SINGH MANN dba JOHNNY
QUIK #109, et al.,

Defendants.

17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-00904---SKO
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF
COURT TO ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSE CASE

20
21

On September 17, 2014, Plaintiff Ronald Moore (“Plaintiff”) filed a Stipulation for

22

Dismissal of this action which was signed by all parties, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

23

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

24
25

In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides as follows:

26

[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action with a court order by filing: . . . (ii) a
stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.

27

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).

28

Page 1

1

"The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims,

2

through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice," and the dismissal "automatically terminates the action as to

3

the defendants who are the subjects of the notice." Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688,

4

692 (9th Cir. 1997). At this stage in the proceedings, Plaintiff has the absolute right to dismiss

5

his claims, without prejudice. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d

6

1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). The filing of the notice itself has the effect of closing the action,

7

and the Court no longer has jurisdiction over the claims. Id.

8
9

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to close this file pursuant
to the Stipulation for Dismissal filed on September 17, 2014.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 29, 2014

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Page 2