Dizon v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Filing 19

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER DISCIPLINARY MATTER. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 12/19/2012. (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
JERRY P. DIZON,
Plaintiff,

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13

v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE,
Defendant.

14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 12-4623-SC
ORDER DISMISSING CASE,
RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER
DISCIPLINARY MATTER

15

On December 11, 2012, the Court adopted as its Order the

16

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins that the

17

complaint of Plaintiff Jerry Dizon against Defendant Wells Fargo

18

Home Mortgage be dismissed.

19

and the undersigned shared a concern over the lack of diligence

20

evinced by Plaintiff's counsel, Mandip Purewal of the National

21

Consumer Law Group, and because the record showed that Mr. Purewal

22

had failed to comply with one of Judge Cousins's orders, the Court

23

referred to Judge Cousins the matter of whether and how Mr. Purewal

24

should be disciplined.

25

ECF No. 16.

Since both Judge Cousins

Id.

On December 14, 2012, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a

26

request to have his case dismissed with prejudice.

ECF No. 18.

27

Though voluntary dismissals like the one requested here generally

28

are without prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff

1

has a right to dismissal without a court order in this case,

2

because Defendant has neither filed an answer nor a motion for

3

summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).

4

the Court ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE,

5

pursuant to Plaintiff's request.

6

Accordingly,

However, Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of his case does not

7

divest the Court of jurisdiction over the pending disciplinary

8

matter.

9

Inc., 205 F. App'x 616, 617 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cooter & Gell

See Williamson Family Trust v. CIT Group/Consumer Fin.,

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990)); see also United

11

States v. Real Prop. Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA,

12

545 F.3d 1134, 1145 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming Cooter & Gell's

13

holding that district courts may consider collateral issues "such

14

as attorney fees or sanctions" following voluntary dismissal).

15

Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff Dizon and Mr. Purewal for

16

purposes of resolving the pending disciplinary matter.

17

remains referred to Judge Cousins.

18

The

That matter

The Court ORDERS Mr. Purewal to provide a true and complete

19

copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to file a declaration stating

20

he has done so within five (5) days of the signature date of this

21

Order.

22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: December 19, 2012
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2