Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01390/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01390-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

This case was transferred to this Court on September 11, 2015, from the District of Hawaii. 

On October 14, 2015, defense counsel for Defendant Matriscope Engineering and Robert Tadlock 

filed a Notice of Voluntary dismissal and Notice of Settlement. See Doc. Nos. 54, 55. The Notice 

of Dismissal is a form from the Central District of California. See Doc. No. 54. The dismissal 

form is not one that is used in the Eastern District of California, but the form is signed by both 

Plaintiffs (who are pro se) and indicates that it is a dismissal of the entire action due to a 

settlement. See id. The Notice of Settlement is signed only by counsel for Defendants Matriscope 

Engineering Laboratories and Robert Tadlock. See Doc. No. 55. Prior to the filing of these 

notices, Defendants Mortenson Construction and Tom Gunkel filed an answer. See id. at Doc. 

No. 21. Mortenson Construction and Gunkel did not sign the Notice of Dismissal, nor have they 

otherwise responded to the Notice of Dismissal or Notice of Settlement. In fact, there have been 

no filings by any party subsequent to the October 14 notices.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or all 

of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy 

Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer, but has 

MARY ANN G. QUILALA, et al,

Plaintiffs

v.

SUN POWER CORP., et al, 

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1390 AWI BAM 

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF 

UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO DISMISS

CASE WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 54)

Case 1:15-cv-01390-AWI-BAM Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 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

not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal must be effected through 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 

111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided 

in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on 

terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a 

motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer 

some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, because Defendants Mortenson Construction and Gunkel have filed an answer, 

Plaintiff cannot unilaterally dismiss their lawsuit under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See Wilson, 111 F.3d 

at 692. However, because Plaintiffs are pro se, and there appears to be a settlement, the Court will 

view the Notice of Dismissal as a request for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). See Greenberg v. 

Centurion Inv. Grp., 145 F.R.D. 610, 612 (S.D. Fla. 1993). So viewing the notice, dismissal is 

appropriate. The answer of Defendants Mortenson Construction and Gunkel contains no 

counterclaims, over two weeks have passed without any response from any party following the 

filing of the notices (which means the requested dismissal is essentially unopposed), and the case 

appears to be settled. Given these considerations, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request and close 

this case. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Notice of Dismissal, which is construed as a request for dismissal under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), is GRANTED (Doc. No. 54) is

GRANTED; and 

2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01390-AWI-BAM Document 57 Filed 11/03/15 Page 2 of 2