Financial Indemnity Company v. Grewal, et al

Filing 13

ORDER Directing the Clerk of Court to Terminate Defendant Richard Ryan Ortiz, Jr. From the Docket, Pursuant to Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiff re 12 signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/5/2014. (Martinez, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FINANCIAL INDEMNITY COMPANY,

12
13
14
15

1:14-cv-01332 --- GSA

Plaintiff,
v.
INDERBIR SINGH GREWAL, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANT
RICHARD RYAN ORTIZ, JR. FROM THE
DOCKET, PURSUANT TO VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL BY PLAINTIFF

16
(Doc. 12)
17
18
19
20
21
22

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff Financial Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a Request
for Dismissal as to Defendant Richard Ryan Ortiz, Jr., Only. Doc. 12. A plaintiff may
voluntarily dismiss a defendant from an action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23
24
25
26

41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41(a)(1)(A), in relevant part, provides:
[T]he 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.

27
28

“The plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—
1

1

through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.” Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). Rule

2

41(a)(1)(B) further provides that a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) is without prejudice

3

“[u]nless the notice or stipulation states otherwise.”

4
A notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is self-executing; a court order is not required to
5
6

effectuate the dismissal. Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506 (“The dismissal is effective on filing [of a

7

notice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)] and no court order is required.”). “Filing a notice of voluntary

8

dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the

9

subjects of the notice.” Id. “Such a dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been

10
11

brought.” Id.
Here Plaintiff has requested voluntary dismissal of Defendant Richard Ryan Ortiz, Jr.

12
13
14
15

before the latter has served an answer. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff’s
request for voluntary dismissal was effective upon filing. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate Defendant Richard Ryan Ortiz, Jr., from the docket.

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 5, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2