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)

Download PDF
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

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?