Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00971-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMMY MCLEAN,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

RUDESINDO FERNANDEZ, aka 

RUDESINDO R. FERNANDEZ, III, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:15-cv-00971-LJO-JLT

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S DISMISSAL

OF UNDERLYING STATE COURT 

ACTION CONSTRUED AS A 

REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 

41(A)(2); AND PERMITTING 

DEFENDANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO 

RESPOND. (Doc. 6)

This action was removed from Kern County Superior Court on June 25, 2015 by Defendant 

District Director of the Internal Revenue Service of the United States of America (“Defendant”), the 

only defendant to make an appearance in this case as of the date of entry of this Order. Doc. 1. 

Defendant answered on July 1, 2015. Doc. 3. On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Notice indicating that 

she had voluntarily dismissed the underlying action in Kern County Superior Court as of July 2, 2015. 

Doc. 6. The Court will construe the August 13, 2015 filing as a request for voluntary dismissal of the 

above-captioned, removed action. 

Voluntary dismissal is automatic (i.e., does not require a court order) if notice is served prior to

any opposing party serving an answer or motion for summary judgment, or if dismissal is pursuant to a 

stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41(a)(1)(A) 

Case 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/14/15 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

2

dismissal is not available here because Defendant filed his Answer on July 1, 2015. However, the Court 

may order dismissal at Plaintiff’s request after the filing of an Answer “on terms that the court considers 

proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Before entering an order of dismissal, however, the Court will permit 

Defendant an opportunity to be heard regarding the terms of dismissal. Accordingly, Defendant shall file 

any objection to dismissal of this action on or before August 19, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT Document 7 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 2