Planz Pinder Enterprises, Inc. v. Minero, et al.

Filing 7

ORDER Discharging Order to Show Cause and Closing Case re 6 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/8/18. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PLANZ PINDER ENTERPRISES, INC.,

9

Plaintiff

10
11
12

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-0180 AWI JLT
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE AND CLOSING CASE

v.
RAMIRO MINERO and EMERITA
MINERO,

(Doc. No. 6)

Defendants

13
14
15

On April 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge assigned to this matter issued an order to show

16

cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See

17

Doc. No. 5.
On May 1, 2018, Plaintiff’s counsel responded to the order to show cause by filing a

18
19

declaration and motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) without

20

prejudice. See Doc. No. 6. As part of the response, current counsel states that he agrees with the

21

Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that federal question jurisdiction is lacking and that dismissal is

22

proper.1

23

Although the motion is brought under Rule 41(a)(2), the Court finds that Rule 41(a)(1)

24

applies because no Defendant has appeared or participated in this lawsuit. Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

26

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a
notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion

27
28

1

Counsel Peterson made the declaration. Counsel Gonzalez filed the complaint.

for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the
dismissal is without prejudice.

1
2
3

Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not

4

require a court order/court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Yesh Music v. Lakewood

5
6

Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d
1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

7
Here, as noted above, no answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary

8
9

judgment have been filed, and it appears that no such documents have been served. Because

10

Plaintiff has exercised its right to voluntarily dismiss its complaint under Rule 41(a)(1), this case

11

has terminated automatically. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

12
13

With respect to the order to show cause, in light of current counsel’s admission and request
to dismiss this case, the Court is satisfied that no further action is necessary. The Court trusts that

14
both of Plaintiff’s counsel will exercise the appropriate level of care and scrutiny to ensure that
15
16
17

jurisdiction actually exists before filing suit in federal court again. Therefore, the order to show
cause will be discharged.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18
19

1.

20
21

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal
without prejudice (Doc. No. 6); and

2.

The order to show cause is discharged (Doc. No. 5).

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2018
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2