Jacquot v. The Pep Boy's Manny Moe and Jack of California

Filing 18

ORDER Closing Case Based on Unopposed Request to Dismiss, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/4/17. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DIERDRE JACQUOT AND ROBERT
JACQUOT,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00069-LJO-BAM
ORDER CLOSING CASE BASED ON
UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO DISMISS
(ECF No. 15)

THE PEP BOYS MANNY MOE & JACK
OF CALIFORNIA,

16

Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs Diedre Jacquot and Robert Jacquot initiated this civil action on January 17,

20

2017. Defendant The Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California answered the complaint on

21

March 21, 2017.

22

On July 25, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice requesting voluntary dismissal of this action

23

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 15.) On July 31, 2017,

24

Defendant filed a statement of non-opposition. (ECF No. 17.)

25

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

26

prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Commercial

27

Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quotation and

28

citation omitted). “Once the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment,
1

1

however, the plaintiff may no longer voluntarily dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1), but must file a

2

motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688,

3

692 (9th Cir. 1999). Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s

4

request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).

5

“A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a

6

defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches,

7

263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

8

Here, Defendant served an answer to the complaint, and thus dismissal under Rule

9

41(a)(1)(A) is not available. Nonetheless, Defendant has not opposed Plaintiff’s request and has

10

consented to voluntary dismissal. Based on Defendant’s non-opposition and consent, the Court

11

finds no reason to deny Plaintiff’s request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), and this action shall

12

be closed.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is GRANTED;

15

2.

All pending motions, if any, are TERMINATED; and

16

3.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

17

This terminates the action in its entirety.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

August 4, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2