Moore v. SVP Partners, LLC et al

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING Defendant Quick 'N' E-Z, Inc. only re 17 signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 6/26/2015. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

RONALD MOORE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SVP PARTNERS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

) No. 1:15-cv-00320---SKO
)
) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
)
) UPDATE DOCKET
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

19
20

On June 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, against

21

Defendant Quick ‘N’ E-Z, Inc., d/b/a Quick N EZ Food 25, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 17.)

23

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

24

26

[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action with 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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some

28

or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically

25

Page 1

1

terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson v. City of

2

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

3

Because Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant Quick ‘N’ E-Z, Inc., with

4

prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the claims against that defendant have been automatically

5

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

6

Accordingly IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is to

7

administratively update the docket to reflect that all claims against Defendant Quick ‘N’ E-Z,

8

Inc., have been dismissed with prejudice, and this defendant is terminated from the lawsuit.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 26, 2015

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Page 2