National Association for the Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice (NAAMJP) et al v. California Supreme Court et al

Filing 107

ORDER re 99 MOTION to Dismiss Judicial Council Defendants filed by Tanesha Walls Blye: Proctor R. Hug, Jr, Roger L. Hunt, Alex Kozinski, Stephen M. McNamee, Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Sydney R. Thomas, Robert H. Whal ey, Ronald M. Gould and Raymond C. Fisher terminated. Motions terminated: 99 MOTION to Dismiss Judicial Council Defendants filed by Tanesha Walls Blye. The caption of this matter is amendedd to reflect the dismissal of the Judicial Council Defendants. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on January 21, 2014. (dle, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2014)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

TANESHA WALLS BLYE, et al.,

CV 11–5046–DWM

Plaintiffs,
vs.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT,
et al.,
Defendants.

Plaintiffs’ Notice of Dismissal of Judicial Council Defendants, (Doc. 99), is
now before the Court. Plaintiffs seek to dismiss without prejudice claims against
Defendants Ninth Circuit Judicial Council, the Honorable Chief Judge Alex
Kozinski, the Honorable Sidney R. Thomas, the Honorable Raymond C. Fisher,
the Honorable Ronald M. Gould, the Honorable Johnnie B. Rawlinson, the
Honorable Proctor R. Hug, Jr., the Honorable Roger L. Hunt, the Honorable
Robert H. Whaley, and the Honorable Stephen M. McNamee (“Judicial Council
Defendants”). (See id.)
The claims against the Judicial Council Defendants are dismissed without
prejudice. Plaintiffs do not refer to any authority to support their voluntary

-1-

dismissal of claims against the Judicial Council Defendants without an Order of
this Court. The categorization of the paper now before the Court as a Notice is at
odds with the docket text entered by Plaintiffs on filing, which labels the paper as
a Motion. Presumably because of confusion over whether their response was
required, the Judicial Council Defendants filed a statement of non-opposition.
(See Doc. 100.) The Judicial Council Defendants interpret the filing as a notice of
voluntary dismissal brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Id.) The Judicial Council’s interpretation is reasonable; it is
supported by the Rule and the presumption that the content of a paper takes
precedence over the docket text entered by a party on its submission to the
Electronic Case Filing system. Rule 41 allows an action to be dismissed pursuant
to a plaintiff’s request, without a court order, where notice of dismissal is filed
before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary
judgment. The Judicial Council has not filed an answer or a motion for summary
judgment in this matter. While the Judicial Council Defendants have filed a
Motion to Dismiss, (see Doc. 74), Plaintiffs may still voluntarily terminate their
claims by filing a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1). See Miller v. Reddin,
422 F.2d 1264, 1265 (9th Cir. 1970). The Plaintiffs’ dismissal of claims against
these Defendants on notice alone is therefore appropriate.
-2-

IT IS ORDERED that claims against the Judicial Council Defendants are
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall update the docket text
accompanying the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Claims against the
Judicial Council Defendants, (Doc. 99), to reflect its status as a “Notice” and not a
“Motion” requiring Court action.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the caption of this matter is amended to
reflect the dismissal of the Judicial Council Defendants.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2014.

-3-