Rodems v. Chico's FAS, Inc.

Filing 11

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/23/2017 terminating Does 1 - 25 as Defendants re 10 . (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

HOLLY RODEMS, an individual; LAYLA
PECKLER, an individual; JENNIFER
SMITH, an individual,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01711-AWI-EPG
ORDER TERMINATING DOES 1-25 AS
DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 10)

v.
CHICO’S FAS, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice dismissing DOES 1-25 without prejudice.
(ECF No. 10.) No court order was required under Rule 41 to effectuate the dismissal. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore,
the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate DOES 1-25 on the docket as defendants and
the pending motion (ECF No. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated:

February 23, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2