Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01339/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01339-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

 Ms. Morton is one of several defendants in this action. Defendants Personal Beauty 1

Unlimited, Inc., Research Foundation for Biochemistry and Nutrition Corp., and Hot Ticket

Enterprises, Inc. have already been dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to a

stipulation approved by the court. (Dkt. No. 10.) The court’s docket reflects the Clerk of the

Court has entered default with respect to defendants Suddenly Slender International, Pyramid

Consulting and Investment Co., Victoria M. Morton Enterprises, Inc., and Suddenly Slender. 

(Dkt. Nos. 38, 39.)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN DILLARD, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:08-cv-01339 FCD KJN PS

vs.

VICTORIA M. MORTON 

ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On February 11, 2010, plaintiffs filed a document entitled “Notice of Dismissal

As To Defendant Victoria Morton (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)),” which purported to

voluntarily dismiss defendant Victoria Morton, an individual proceeding without counsel, from

this action without prejudice. (Dkt. No. 42.) The operative complaint is plaintiffs’ First 1

Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 20), and Ms. Morton has filed an answer to the First Amended

Case 2:08-cv-01339-KJM-KJN Document 43 Filed 02/25/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Complaint (Dkt. No. 22). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that “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. . . .” Dismissal under this rule

requires no action on the part of the court and divests the court of jurisdiction once the notice of

voluntary dismissal is filed. See, e.g., United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin

Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Here, plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal is defective because Ms. Morton served an

answer to plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint before plaintiffs filed their notice of dismissal. 

Thus, in order for plaintiffs to dismiss Ms. Morton from the action without a court order, they

must file a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Absent such a stipulation, plaintiffs must obtain a “court order, on terms that the

court considers proper,” in order to effect the voluntary dismissal of Ms. Morton. Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(2). 

The court hereby ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiffs’ “Notice of Dismissal As To Defendant Victoria Morton (Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i))” is defective and does not effectuate the dismissal of Victoria Morton

without prejudice;

2. Plaintiffs’ notice is construed as a motion for voluntary dismissal; and

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, defendant Victoria

Morton may file either (1) a statement of non-opposition and joinder in her dismissal from this

action without prejudice, or (2) an opposition to her dismissal or dismissal without prejudice,

which may alternatively request that the court consider imposing appropriate conditions on the

dismissal sought by plaintiffs.

If defendant Victoria Morton fails to file a writing provided for above within the

time permitted, the undersigned will recommend to the United States District Judge assigned to

Case 2:08-cv-01339-KJM-KJN Document 43 Filed 02/25/10 Page 2 of 3
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

3

this case that defendant Victoria Morton be dismissed from the action on terms that the court

considers proper.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 24, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:08-cv-01339-KJM-KJN Document 43 Filed 02/25/10 Page 3 of 3