Ribeiro v. Rickenbacker Group, Inc. et al

Filing 16

ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC.S 12 MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/16/2010. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2010)

Download PDF
Ribeiro v. Rickenbacker Group, Inc. et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA No. C 10-04648 CW ORDER REGARDING NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AS TO DEFENDANT EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC AND DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS (Docket No. 12) LEONARD RIBEIRO, Plaintiff, v. RICKENBACKER GROUP, INC.; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; and EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES LLC, Defendants. / Plaintiff Leonard Ribeiro initiated this lawsuit on October 14, 2010. On November 9, 2010, Defendant Equifax Information On November 17, 2010, Services LLC answered Plaintiff's complaint. Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc., moved to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. Defendant Rickenbacker Group, Inc., has not appeared in this action. On December 2, 2010, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. 10:18 a.m. on December 3, 2010, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, stating that his claims against all Defendants were dismissed without prejudice. (Docket No. 14.) At 11:56 a.m. At that same day, Plaintiff filed another notice of voluntary dismissal, stating that the dismissal of his claims against Experian was with prejudice. (Docket No. 15.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) affords a plaintiff the absolute right to dismiss an action without a court order by filing "a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment" or "a Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Equifax has answered Plaintiff's complaint. Thus, Plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss his claims against it without either a stipulation or a court order. His filing of an amended complaint did not reinstate his right under Rule 41(a)(1) to dismiss his claims against Equifax. See, e.g., Forties B LLC v. Am. West Satellite, Inc., 2010 WL 2594297, at *2 (S.D.N.Y.) (stating that "the answer to the original complaint terminated plaintiffs' ability to withdraw the action unilaterally as to the answering defendants") (citing Tedeschi v. Barney, 95 F.R.D. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)); Armstrong v. Frostie Co., 453 F.2d 914, 916 (4th Cir. 1971). The Court deems Plaintiff's notice of dismissal concerning Equifax a motion to dismiss without prejudice his claims against it. Within three days of the date of this Order, Equifax may file In the alternative, Equifax an opposition to Plaintiff's motion. may file a statement of non-opposition or decline to respond, in which case Plaintiff's claims against it will be dismissed without prejudice. Neither Rickenbacker nor Experian have answered or filed a motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims against Rickenbacker are dismissed without prejudice and his claims against Experian are dismissed with prejudice. moot Experian's motion to dismiss. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DENIES as (Docket No. 12.) Dated: 12/16/210 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 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?