Stone v. Facebook Inc. et al
Filing
26
ORDER granting Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 08/22/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2017)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Ju
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
PLAINTIFF SEEKS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
The plaintiff moves the Court to dismiss this action,
without prejudice. Rule 41a(1)(A) permits voluntary dismissal,
by a plaintiff, without a court order.
Rule 41. Dismissal of Actions
(a) Voluntary Dismissal.
(1) By the Plaintiff.
(A) Without a Court Order. Subject to Rules 23(e),
23.1(c), 23.2, and 66 and any applicable federal statute, the
plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order.
Rule 23(e) applies to Class Actions. Rule 231(c) applies
to Derivative Actions. Rule 23.2 applies to Actions Related to
Unincorporated
Associations.
Rule
66
applies
to
Receivers.
These exceptions do not apply to plaintiff’s cause of action.
1
R NIA
. O r r i ck
H
ER
liam H
d g e Wi l
FO
RT
Defendant.
NO
Facebook, Inc., et al.
ERED
O ORD
IT IS S
LI
v.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
A
Plaintiff,
UNIT
ED
Jack Stone,
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
RT
U
O
S
Case No.17-CV-01738-WHO
C
Rule
41a(1)(A)(i)
applies
to
matters
where
defendants
have already received notice. The defendants have not received
notice, and have not appeared in this matter.
Rule
41a(1)(B)
Effect. Unless
the
notice
states
otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. However, if the
plaintiff
previously
dismissed
any
federal,
or
state-court
action based on, or including the same claim, a notice of
dismissal
operates
as
an
adjudication
on
the
merits.
Rule
41a(1)(B) does not apply to this action as the plaintiff had
not previously dismissed any federal, or state-court action
based on the same claim.
Plaintiff’s
Motion
for
Dismissal
Without
Prejudice
is
itself sufficient to dismiss the case without prejudice and
without the Court’s involvement. See Detroit Metro. Airport
Taxi Ass’n v. Detroit Metro. Wayne County Airport Auth., No.
09-CV-14041, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101746, at *1 (E.D. Mich.
Nov.
2,
2009)
(“.
.
.
Rule
41(a)(1)(i)
is
clear
and
unambiguous on its face and admits of no exceptions that call
for
the
exercise
of
judicial
discretion
by
any
court.”
(quoting D. C. Elecs., Inc. v. Narton Corp., 511 F.2d 294, 298
(6th Cir. 1975))); see also Bldg. Concepts & Designs Constr.,
Inc. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., No. 06-2777, 2006
U.S.
Dist.
LEXIS
54921,
at
*4-6
(collecting cases holding same).
2
(E.D.
La.
Aug.
7,
2006)
Conclusion
The
plaintiff
seeks
to
dismiss
this
action,
without
prejudice, per FRCP Rule 41.
Date: July 24th, 2017
Respectfully Submitted,
/S/ Jack Stone
Jack Stone
Diamond Heights 1-101
Saiwai-chou 21-18
Kanagawa-ken, Chigasaki-shi
253-0052, Japan
Email: email@stackjones.com
Telephone: (81) 070-6951-2337
3
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?