Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01996/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01996-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA PALACIOS, )

) 

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

HENRY D. NUNEZ, )

WILLIAM F. HANCOCK, JR, and )

Does 1 through 100,, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-01996 AWI SMS

ORDER CLOSING THE CASE

DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

ORDER DENYING PENDING

MOTIONS AS MOOT

On January 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of this case because Plaintiff is

unable to proceed. Although not stated in the notice, the Court construes it as one made

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).

In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his

action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary

judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir.

1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of

dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary

judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id.

The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his

claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-

10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court

automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of

the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is

ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for

the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportHarris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal

Case 1:08-cv-01996-AWI -SMS Document 46 Filed 01/11/10 Page 1 of 2
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

leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

No answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been

filed in this case, and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been

served. The pending motions to dismiss do not account as appearances requiring Defendants’

agreement to stipulation. See Crum v. Circus Circus Enters., 231 F.3d 1129, 1130 n.3 (9th Cir.

2000); Doe v. United States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir.1995). Because Plaintiff has exercised

her right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See

Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(i) requested dismissal. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-01996-AWI -SMS Document 46 Filed 01/11/10 Page 2 of 2