Hopson v. Valhalla Property Holding LLC, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause and Directing Clerk of Court to Close Case and Adjust Docket to Reflect Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/10/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CYNTHIA HOPSON,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-01798-AWI-SAB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK
OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND
ADJUST DOCKET TO REFLECT
VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
VALHALLA PROPERTY HOLDING LLC,
et al.,

15
Defendants.

(ECF Nos. 13, 14, 15)

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

This action was filed on November 28, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On July 17, 2017, Plaintiff
filed a notice of settlement and an order issued directing Plaintiff to file dispositive documents
within seventy five days. (ECF Nos. 11, 12.) Plaintiff did not timely file dispositive documents
and an order to show cause why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply was filed on
October 4, 2017.
On October 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and a notice of
voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

While Plaintiff fails to provide cause for the failure to file timely dispositive

documents, the Court shall discharge the October 4, 3017 order. Counsel for Plaintiff is advised
that notice of the repeated failures to comply have been taken and he should put in place
procedures to ensure that this trend not continue in the future or sanctions will issue.

28
1

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his

1

2 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ”
3 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
4 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has
5 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet
6 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th
7 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required,
8 the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the
9 district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193
10 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading.
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1.

The order to show cause filed October 4, 2017, is DISCHARGED; and

13

2.

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust

14

the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal with prejudice of this action pursuant to

15

Rule 41(a).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated:

October 10, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2