Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02997/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02997-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02997-WBS-CMK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

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

Marc Applbaum SBN: 222511

Kettner Law Corp.

2150 W. Washington St., Suite 104

San Diego, CA 92110

Tel.: (619) 756-7378

Fax: (619) 363-3944

marc@kettnerlawcorp.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs, RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. JACKSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. 

JACKSON,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; REGIONAL 

SERVICE CORP.; RTS APCIFIC, INC.; and

DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,

 Defendants

______________________________________

Case No. 2:14-CV-02997-WBS-CMK

Assigned to Hon. William B. Shubb

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL 

ORDER

Come now plaintiffs, RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. JACKSON, by and through 

their attorney of record, Marc Applbaum, and respectfully request the court to dismiss the above 

referenced case without prejudice as to all parties and all causes of action.

DATED: February 23, 2014 KETTNER LAW CORPORATION

BY: __/s/Marc Applbaum 

MARC APPLBAUM

Attorney for Plaintiffs,

Case 2:14-cv-02997-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 03/05/15 Page 1 of 2
2

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02997-WBS-CMK

REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL

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

RONALD W. JACKSON and DONNA L. JACKSON

ORDER

Plaintiffs have filed a request to dismiss this action. In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth 

Circuit explained the ramifications of a Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

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. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a 

dismissal 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 Plaintiffs’ 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. Because 

Plaintiffs have exercised their right to voluntarily dismiss this complaint under Rule 41(a)(1), this case 

has terminated as explained.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is ordered to close this case 

in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) Voluntary Dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 5, 2015

Case 2:14-cv-02997-WBS-CMK Document 16 Filed 03/05/15 Page 2 of 2