Sosa v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A.

Filing 53

ORDER DENYING RELIEF REQUESTED IN ECF NOS. 49 , 51 , & 52 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (lblc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
MARIA G. SOSA, an individual,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

No. C 12-00144 LB
ORDER DENYING REQUESTED
RELIEF

13
14

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A.; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,

[ECF Nos. 49, 51, & 52]

15
16
17

Defendants.
_____________________________________/
On August 2, 2012, Plaintiff Maria Sosa filed a document titled “Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary

18

Dismissal Without Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP Rule 41(a)(2).” ECF No. 49.1 The object of

19

Plaintiff’s “Notice” is her request “that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule

20

41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See id. at 2. Plaintiff also filed a Proposed Order

21

Dismissing Entire Action Without Prejudice. ECF No. 51. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Bank of

22

New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. (“BNYM”) filed an application for an Order requesting the

23

court to release Sosa’s bond payments to it. See ECF No. 52.

24

Plaintiff’s “Notice” requests dismissal “without prejudice” and thus should have been filed as a

25

noticed motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2. Accordingly, the court DENIES the relief requested in

26
27
28

1

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”), with pin cites to the court-generated page
numbers at the top of the document.

C 12-00144 LB
ORDER

1

ECF Nos. 49 & 51 without prejudice.

2

Plaintiff may file a motion seeking the relief requested in ECF No. 49 accompanied by a

3

proposed order similar to ECF No. 51. Plaintiff’s motion must comply with all applicable rules

4

including (but not limited to) Civil Local Rules 7-2 & 7-5.

5

BNYM’s Application for an Order indicates that it was filed in response to Plaintiff’s “Notice.”

6

See ECF No. 52 at 3 (referring to ECF No. 49). Accordingly, BNYM’s Application is also DENIED

7

without prejudice. To allow for the orderly adjudication of BNYM’s claim, it may re-file its

8

Application as a noticed motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 2, 2012
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

This disposes of ECF Nos. 49, 51, & 52.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 12-00144 LB
ORDER

2