Hernandez v. National Express Transit Corporation et al

Filing 9

ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to TERMINATE Defendant Daniel Klemple signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 6/28/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE GUZMAN HERNANDEZ,

12

Plaintiff

13
14
15

v.
NATIONAL EXPRESS TRANSIT
CORPORATION, et al.,

Case No. 1:17-cv-00610-DAD-EPG
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
THE COURT TO TERMINATE
DEFENDANT DANIEL KLEMPLE
(ECF No. 7)

Defendants.

16
17

On June 27, 2017, Plaintiff Jorge Hernandez filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
18
dismissing his claims against Defendant Daniel Klemple without prejudice. (ECF No. 7.)
19
Defendant Klemple has not filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. In light of
20

Plaintiff’s notice, the claims against Defendant Daniel Klemple have been terminated, see Fed. R.

21
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and
22

dismissed without prejudice. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Even if the

23
defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff may terminate his action voluntarily by filing
24

a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).”).

25
\\\
26
\\\
27
\\\
28
1

1
2

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Daniel Klemple as a
Defendant in this case.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 28, 2017

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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