Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03413/USCOURTS-azd-2_24-cv-03413-2/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dietmar Hanke,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Jason Trembly, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-24-03413-PHX-KML

ORDER 

Plaintiff Dietmar Hanke filed a “Notice of Dismissal.” (Doc. 8.) Because no 

defendant has filed an answer, Hanke is entitled to dismiss his case without a court order. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). But Hanke’s notice also requests the court “provide a refund 

[of the filing fee] to [his] credit card or by check to the address below.” (Doc. 8 at 3.) The 

statute requiring the collection of a filing fee does not contain any provision allowing for 

the refund of that fee. 28 U.S.C. § 1914. And many other district courts have concluded 

“[a] district court lacks the authority to refund a filing fee after a voluntary dismissal.” 

Hinman v. Gianforte, No. CV-24-33-BU-BMM-JTJ, 2024 WL 3567394, at *1 (D. Mont. 

July 29, 2024) (quoting Duclairon v. LGBTQ Cmty. & Grace Cmty. Church Klan, No. 

3:18-CV-01095-AC, 2018 WL 5085754, at *1 (D. Or. Oct. 17, 2018)). Because Hanke did 

not identify any authority to the contrary, his request for a refund is denied.

/

/

/

Case 2:24-cv-03413-KML Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 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

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk 

of Court shall close this case. The request for a refund of the filing fee is DENIED.

Dated this 20th day of December, 2024.

Case 2:24-cv-03413-KML Document 9 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2