Arias v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/29/2017 directing Clerk of the Court to terminate Defendant, Quality Loan Service Corporation as a party to this action; terminate 12 Motion to Dismiss and to vacate all pending dates and matters as to Quality Loan Service Corporation re 19 . (Lundstrom, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No. 1:17-cv-01130-DAD-SAB
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF THE
COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANT
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION AS A PARTY IN THIS
ACTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
41(a), TERMINATING QUALITY LOAN
SERVICE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO
DISMISS, AND VACATING ALL
PENDING DATES AND MATTERS AS TO
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
(ECF No. 19)
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et
On November 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice
20 as to Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation only. (ECF No. 19.)
“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his
22 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ”
23 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
24 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). Rule 41(a) of the
25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure also allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in
26 an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir.
27 1997). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court
28 order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina
1 v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993).
“[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the
3 parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the
4 district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193
5 F.3d at 1078. Here, Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss,
6 but the Ninth Circuit has held that a pending motion to dismiss is not equivalent to an answer or
7 motion for summary judgment. Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 1970).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Quality Loan
Service Corporation as a party in this action;
Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 12) is
All pending dates and matters in this action are vacated as to Defendant Quality
Loan Service Corporation only.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 29, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?