Jackson et al v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/5/2015 re 14 Plaintiff's Request for Dismissal. Civil Case Terminated. CASE CLOSED. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4

Marc Applbaum SBN: 222511
Kettner Law Corp.
2150 W. Washington St., Suite 104
San Diego, CA 92110
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

5

Attorney for Plaintiffs, RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. JACKSON
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
11

RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L.
JACKSON,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:14-CV-02997-WBS-CMK
Assigned to Hon. William B. Shubb

12
13

v.
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

14
15
16
17

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; REGIONAL
SERVICE CORP.; RTS APCIFIC, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,

ORDER

Defendants
______________________________________

18
19
20

Come now plaintiffs, RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. JACKSON, by and through
their attorney of record, Marc Applbaum, and respectfully request the court to dismiss the above

21

referenced case without prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action.
22
23
24

DATED: February 23, 2014

KETTNER LAW CORPORATION

25

BY: __/s/Marc Applbaum
MARC APPLBAUM
Attorney for Plaintiffs,

26
27
28

1
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02997-WBS-CMK
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. JACKSON

1

ORDER

2
3

Plaintiffs have filed a request to dismiss this action. In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth

4

Circuit explained the ramifications of a Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the

5

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to
service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Concha v. London,
62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express,
813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff
files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary
judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. The plaintiff
may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1)
notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of
voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who
are the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is
ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for the same
cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing
McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a
dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)
No answers to Plaintiffs’ complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been filed in

17
18

this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. Because

19

Plaintiffs have exercised their right to voluntarily dismiss this complaint under Rule 41(a)(1), this case

20

has terminated as explained.

21

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is ordered to close this case

22

in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) Voluntary Dismissal.
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26

Dated: March 5, 2015

27
28

2
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02997-WBS-CMK
REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL