Avalos v. Sidhu, et al.
ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk to Terminate Defendants Baljit Singh Sidhu and Navjeet Singh Cahal, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/16/2021. (Marrujo, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BALJIT SINGH SIDHU, NAVJEET
SINGH CAHAL, and KAMALJIT BRAR,
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO
TERMINATE DEFENDANTS BALJIT
SINGH SIDHU AND NAVJEET SINGH
On February 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as
to Baljit Singh Sidhu and Navjeet Singh Cahal Only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A). (Doc. 19.)
In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides as follows:
[A] 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 for
summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or
all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically terminates the
action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111
F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
Plaintiff filed its notice before Defendants Baljit Singh Sidhu and Navjeet Singh Cahal
served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. As such, Plaintiff has voluntarily
dismissed Baljit Singh Sidhu and Navjeet Singh Cahal without prejudice and this case has
automatically terminated as to those defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the
Clerk of the Court is directed to TERMINATE Defendants Baljit Singh Sidhu and Navjeet Singh
This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiff’s case against the remaining
IT IS SO ORDERED.
February 16, 2021
Sheila K. Oberto
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?