Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01281-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JORGE C. AGUINIGA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CITY OF FRESNO, et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-05-1281 AWI LJO

ORDER CLOSING THE CASE

DUE TO VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE AND DENYING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AS MOOT

On November 18, 2005, the parties filed a stipulation for voluntary dismissal with

prejudice of this matter. The Court construes this stipulation as a notice of dismissal pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).

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 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. DavenportCase 1:05-cv-01281-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 11/28/05 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

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 his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint with

prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk is ordered to close this case in light of the parties’s Rule 41(a)(1)

Stipulation of Dismissal; and

2. Defendants’s pending motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01281-AWI-LJO Document 12 Filed 11/28/05 Page 2 of 2