Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01519/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01519-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement. See Doc. No. 12. On 

December 6, 2016, Magistrate Judge Oberto ordered the parties to file dispositional paper within 

21 days, per the Local Rules. See Doc. No. 14. 

On December 21, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal and a motion to 

dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). See Doc. Nos. 15, 16. The voluntary dismissal states that the 

Defendants being dismissed have not filed an answer, but the motion does not actually identify the 

Defendants. The motion to dismiss states that Defendants Ocwen and Wells Fargo have filed 

answers. See id. A review of the record confirms that Ocwen and Wells Fargo have indeed filed 

answers. See Doc. No. 1 at Ex. 3. Although Western Progressive is represented by the same 

counsel, Western Progressive has not actually filed an answer. Thus, it appears that Western 

Progressive is the defendant who is the subject of the notice of voluntary dismissal.

The answer of Ocwen and Wells Fargo is significant. Their answer prevents Plaintiff from 

utilizing Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) to unilaterally and automatically terminate this case or a particular 

defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th 

MARIA CHAVEZ,

Plaintiff

v.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1519 AWI SKO 

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING 

SCHEDULE ON PLAINTIFF’S RULE 

41(a)(2) MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. No. 16)

Case 1:16-cv-01519-AWI-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/22/16 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

Cir. 1999); Warren v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22665, *1-*2 (D. Colo. 

Feb. 24, 2015); Rachel v. City of Mobile, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11582, *2-*3 (S.D. Ala. Feb. 2, 

2015); Local 2-1971 of PACE Intl. Union v. Cooper, 364 F.Supp.2d 546, 551 (W.D. N.C. 2005); 

Sullivan b. Bankhead Enterprises, Inc., 108 F.R.D. 378, 382 (D. Mass. 1985). Although 

Defendant Western Progressive has not filed an answer, because Ocwen and Wells Fargo have not 

signed the stipulation, Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal is ineffective under Rule 

41(a)(1)(A)(i). See id. Therefore, Western Progressive remains a defendant.

With respect to the motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(2), Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that 

her client wishes to forgo settlement and prefers to simply dismiss this case. See Doc. No. 16. 

Plaintiff’s counsel also anticipates that Ocwen and Wells Fargo will oppose the dismissal. See id. 

At this time, there is no hearing date set for the Rule 41(a)(2) motion. 

Given the representations of Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court will set a briefing schedule. As 

part of the response/opposition, Defendants will be required to indicate whether they oppose or 

consent to the dismissal of Western Progressive.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file a response or opposition to Plaintiff Rule 41(a)(2) motion (Doc. No. 1

6) as soon as possible, but no later than January 4, 2017; and

2. Plaintiff shall file a reply to any response or opposition no later than January 11, 2017.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 22, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1

Following review of the parties’ papers, if the Court determines that a hearing would be beneficial, it will set a 

hearing date at that time.

Case 1:16-cv-01519-AWI-SKO Document 19 Filed 12/22/16 Page 2 of 2