Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02224/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02224-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1 

 NO. C 10‐2224  RS

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 08/09/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

MICHAEL ALLEN HESS, et al.,

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

No. C 10-2224 RS 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE 

 On July 26, 2010, pro se plaintiffs Michael Allen Hess and Dynese Mouzakis filed a 

document captioned “Request for Dismissal.” They ask the Court to dismiss all claims against all 

defendants without prejudice. Defendants have not filed any papers either in support of or 

opposition to this request. Currently, the defendants have not answered the Complaint but have 

filed a motion for dismissal. A hearing on defendant’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for August 

12, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. before the undersigned. Plaintiffs have not filed any substantive papers in 

opposition. 

 In light of the procedural posture of this case—where defendants have filed neither answer 

nor motion for summary judgment—the Court construes plaintiff’s “request” as a notice of 

voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That Rule provides 

Case 3:10-cv-02224-RS Document 14 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 3
2 

 NO. C 10‐2224  RS

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

that “an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a notice of 

dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary 

judgment, whichever first occurs . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). “Unless otherwise stated 

in the notice of dismissal . . . , the dismissal is without prejudice. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(B). 

A 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not function as an answer, nor is it converted into a motion for 

summary judgment without both the inclusion of materials extraneous to the complaint and some 

affirmative conduct by the district court. See, e.g., Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1444-46 

(9th Cir. 2003) (affirming voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) where defendant’s pending 

motion to dismiss was not construable as a motion for summary judgment). This is not the case 

here. The Rule does not require a court order to effectuate such a notice of dismissal. 

 Accordingly, plaintiffs’ notice operates as a notice of dismissal. As there is nothing in the 

record to indicate that the plaintiffs have “previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action 

based on or including the same claim,” plaintiff’s dismissal is without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

41(a)(1)(B). The parties shall proceed accordingly and the clerk shall close the docket. While it 

may go without saying, the hearing scheduled for August 12, 2010 is vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 08/09/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 3:10-cv-02224-RS Document 14 Filed 08/09/10 Page 2 of 3
3 

 NO. C 10‐2224  RS

ORDER 

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

For the Northern District of California 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT A HARD COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS MAILED TO: 

Michael Allen Hess 

2811 Abbeydale Court 

Brentwood, CA 94513 

Dynese Mouzakis 

2811 Abbeydale Court 

Brentwood, CA 94513

DATED: 08/09/2010 

 /s/ Chambers Staff 

 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg 

* Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to any co-counsel who have not 

registered with the Court’s electronic filing system. 

 

Case 3:10-cv-02224-RS Document 14 Filed 08/09/10 Page 3 of 3