Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03834/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03834-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAIMIN JIMMY JEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.15-cv-03834-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY PARTIAL 

DISMISSAL; STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING 

AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION

TO DISMISS AND DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

Re: Dkt. Nos. 38, 39, 40 & 41

Pro se Plaintiff Kaimin Jen (“Plaintiff”) moves to voluntarily dismiss his claim for racial 

and national origin discrimination under California Civil Code § 52.1(b). Dkt. No. 41; see also

Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 45-47. The Court previously granted Defendant City and County of San Francisco’s 

(“San Francisco”) motion to dismiss that claim without prejudice and with leave to amend. Dkt. 

No. 29 at 10-11. In response, Plaintiff initially attempted to amend his complaint in the form of a 

legal brief. Dkt. No. 38. San Francisco then moved to dismiss that document or in the alternative 

for a more definite statement, Dkt. No. 39, and also moved to expedite hearing on that motion, 

Dkt. No. 40. Plaintiff then filed the instant motion for voluntary dismissal. The Court discussed 

these issues during a further case management conference that was held on October 4, 2016.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides that a party may voluntarily dismiss a 

claim without court approval if the notice of dismissal is filed “before the opposing party serves 

either an answer or a motion for summary judgment” or upon “a stipulation of dismissal signed by 

all parties who have appeared.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) provides that in all other 

cases that court approval is required to voluntarily dismiss a claim in all other situations.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion is proper. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS

Case 4:15-cv-03834-HSG Document 47 Filed 10/05/16 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss his claim for racial and national origin discrimination 

under California Civil Code § 52.1(b) that flowed from the 1999, 2000, and 2007 building code 

enforcement actions. The Court also STRIKES Plaintiff’s “first amended complaint,” Dkt. No. 

38, and will consider Plaintiff’s original complaint, Dkt. No. 1, as the operative complaint. For 

that reason, the Court also DENIES AS MOOT San Francisco’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint and its motion to have its motion to dismiss heard on shortened time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 10/5/2016 10/4/2016

Case 4:15-cv-03834-HSG Document 47 Filed 10/05/16 Page 2 of 2