Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01032/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01032-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal as to Defendants 

Robert Stevens and Kelli Stevens, only. See Doc. No. 7. The notice is made pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). See id.

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. 

CYNTHIA HOPSON ,

Plaintiff

v.

ROBERT STEVENS, KELLI STEVENS, 

and ALI ASHRAF, as an individual and 

d.b.a. Fast and Easy Chrevron, and DOES 

1-10 inclusive,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1032 AWI SMS 

ORDER DISMISSING STEVENS

DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO RULE 

41 NOTICE

(Doc. No. 7)

Case 1:15-cv-01032-DAD-SMS Document 8 Filed 10/08/15 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

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 

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 have been filed 

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

Because Plaintiff has exercised her right to voluntarily dismiss Defendants Robert Stevens and 

Kelli Stevens under Rule 41(a)(1), those individuals are no longer parties to this action. See

Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall TERMINATE Robert 

Stevens and Kelli Stevens as Defendants, as they were dismissed from this case by Plaintiff 

pursuant to Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 8, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01032-DAD-SMS Document 8 Filed 10/08/15 Page 2 of 2