Carroll v. City of Modesto

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT AND CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/31/17. (Robles, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1691 AWI SKO
STEPHEN A. CARROLL ,

9
10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT AND
CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF NOTICE
OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. Nos. 4, 23)

CITY OF MODESTO, and DOES 1 to 5,

13
Defendants.
14
15
16

On November 25, 2015, Defendant City of Modesto (“Modesto”) filed a motion to dismiss

17

Plaintiff Stephen Carroll’s (“Carroll”) complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can

18

be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6). See Doc. No. 4. On March 31, 2017,

19

Carroll filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice. See Doc. No. 23.

20

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

21

(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.

22
23
24
25

Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not

26

require a court order/court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Yesh Music v. Lakewood

27

Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d

28

1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

Here, no answers to Crowell’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been

1
2

filed in this case, and it appears that no such documents have been served. Because Carroll has

3

exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), this

4

case has terminated automatically. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

5

Further, in light of Carroll’s voluntary dismissal, Modesto’s motion to dismiss is now moot and

6

will be denied as such.

7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

10
11

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal
without prejudice; and

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED as moot.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2