Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01537/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01537-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOE HAND PROMOTIONS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

RENZO EDWARD LOUIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01537-NONE-SAB

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK 

OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND 

ADJUST DOCKET TO REFLECT 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(ECF No. 12, 13, 14)

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on October 30, 2019. (ECF No. 

1.) After Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement, an order was filed on January 10, 2020 requiring 

Plaintiff to file dispositional documents on or before April 10, 2020. (ECF Nos. 7,8.) When 

Plaintiff failed to file dispositional documents, an order to show cause issued on April 14, 2020. 

(ECF No. 12.) On April 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause and a 

notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(ECF Nos. 13-15.) The notice of voluntary dismissal states that this action is to be dismissed 

with prejudice with each party to bear its own costs. 

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s response and shall discharge the April 14, 2020 order 

to show cause.

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 

action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 

Case 1:19-cv-01537-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 04/16/20 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

27

28

2

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 

held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 

to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, 

the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the 

district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 

F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order to show cause, filed April 14, 2020, is DISCHARGED; and

2. the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the 

purpose of closing the case and then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary 

dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 15, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01537-DAD-SAB Document 16 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 2