Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00336/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00336-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 October 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to 

Defendant Darrell Jamgochian pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). See Doc. 

No. 24. 

 Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads: 

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a 

notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion 

for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 

have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the 

dismissal is without prejudice. 

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 

filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the 

DEREK THOMASON,

Plaintiff

v.

CITY OF FOWLER, et al.,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-336 AWI BAM 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

DARRELL JAMGOCHIAN AND 

DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS 

MOOT

(Doc. Nos. 17, 37)

Case 1:13-cv-00336-AWI-BAM Document 50 Filed 03/06/14 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

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 Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment were filed prior 

to October 30, 2013. Because Plaintiff exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint 

without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1) as to Darrell Jamgochian, Defendant Darrell Jamgochian 

was terminated, and he is no longer a party to this case. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. 

Furthermore, Defendant Jamgochian’s motion to dismiss is now moot.

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Clerk shall correct the docket to reflect that Defendant Darrell Jamgochian has been 

TERMINATED from this matter as of October 30, 2013, in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 

41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal without prejudice; and 

2. Defendant Jamgochian’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 3, 2014 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:13-cv-00336-AWI-BAM Document 50 Filed 03/06/14 Page 2 of 2