Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01463/USCOURTS-cand-4_08-cv-01463-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The court interpreted this as a request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i).

2

 As the docket for this case indicated that U.S. Trades had not filed an answer or a

motion for summary judgment, the court concluded that plaintiffs had inadvertently omitted the

word “not.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REYNALDO SALINAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 08-1463 PJH

v. ORDER

AMTECK OF TEXAS, et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

On August 11, 2008, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of defendant U.S.

Trades, LLC (“U.S. Trades”), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure “41(a)(1)(i).”1

 In

the notice, plaintiffs stated that “[d]efendant has been served with process and has filed an

answer or a motion for summary judgment,”2 that “[p]laintiff has not dismissed an action

based on or including the same claims as those presented in this suit,” and that “[t]his

dismissal is without prejudice to refiling.” Although no court order is required under Rule

41(a)(1)(A), it is nonetheless this court’s practice to issue an order of dismissal when

presented with a request for voluntary dismissal under that rule. On August 12, 2008, the

court ordered the dismissal.

On August 15, 2008, counsel for U.S. Trades wrote a letter to the court advising that

plaintiffs’ dismissal of U.S. Trades “is with prejudice,” based on the provision in Rule

41(a)(1)(B), that “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

Case 4:08-cv-01463-PJH Document 57 Filed 08/26/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

merits.” Counsel for U.S. Trades stated, “Since plaintiffs previously dismissed the state

court action they filed in Napa, California, based on the same claim, plaintiffs’ dismissal of

U.S. Trades, LLC operates as an adjudication on the merits.”

There is a discrepancy between the statements in plaintiffs’ request for dismissal

and the letter from counsel for U.S. Trades. To resolve this discrepancy, the court requires

either that the parties submit a stipulation stating their agreement that the dismissal of U.S.

Trades is with prejudice, based on Rule 41(a)(1)(B), or that they brief the issue for the

court. 

If the parties choose to file a stipulation, they shall do so no later than August 29,

2008. If the parties choose to brief the issue, each side shall file a brief not to exceed five

pages, with authority, addressing whether the dismissal of U.S. Trades is with or without

prejudice, whether the Napa County Superior Court action involved claims identical to

those asserted in the present action, and whether Rule 41(a)(1)(B) applies when the party

that is the subject of the notice of dismissal was not a party to the previously dismissed

action. Plaintiffs’ brief shall be filed no later than September 3, 2008, and U.S. Trades’ brief

shall be filed no later than September 10, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:08-cv-01463-PJH Document 57 Filed 08/26/08 Page 2 of 2