Acosta v. Soriano et al

Filing 17

ORDER Directing Clerk of Court to Close Case and Adjust Docket to Reflect Voluntary Dismissal, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/24/18. CASE CLOSED (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ACOSTA, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 Case No. 1:18-cv-00343-DAD-SAB ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL v. ANTHONY JOAQUIN BARRITA SORIANO, et al., (ECF No. 16) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 This action was filed on March 9, 2018. (ECF No. 1.) On October 23, 2018, Plaintiff 19 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 16.) The Court notes that Plaintiff’s name is incorrect in the 21 caption and in the attorney signature. Additionally, the magistrate judge’s initials are incorrect in 22 the case number. While the Court identifies these errors, the defendants are correctly identified 23 in the caption, Plaintiff is correctly identified below the attorney’s name and address, and the 24 number of the case itself is correct. In addition, the Court notes the previously filed notice of 25 settlement required dispositive documents to be filed by October 25, 2018. (ECF No. 14.) The 26 Court concludes that the notice of voluntary dismissal of entire action was intended to be filed in 27 this action. Counsel is cautioned to exercise more care in the future. 28 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 1 1 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 2 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 3 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 4 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 5 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 6 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, 7 the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the 8 district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 9 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this 10 11 case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: October 24, 2018 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?