Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01242/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01242-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Background 

 On June 18, 2012, Defendant TW & Company filed for bankruptcy. 

On June 20, 2012, the Court stayed this action in light of the bankruptcy of a Defendant. 

 On August 22, 2012, an order remanding a completely different action was inadvertently 

filed in this case. See Doc. No. 33. The remanded order was in a case styled Bank of New York 

Mellon v. Kellerman. See id. The case number for the case at bar was mistakenly used on the 

Kellerman remand order. See id. 

On August 23, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered a minute order of docket correction, 

which stated that the remand order should be disregard because the wrong case number was listed. 

See Doc. No. 34. However, the Clerk of the Court did not formally re-open the case. 

 On November 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to reopen the case and dismiss Defendant 

TW & Company under Rule 41(a)(2). See Doc. No. 36. Plaintiff explains that, due to the 

bankruptcy stay, the best option is to dismiss TW & Company and proceed against the individual 

VICTOR JONES,

Plaintiff

v.

TW & COMPANY, INCORPORATED, 

DBA IN CALIFORNIA AS THE TANYA 

A. WALKER CORPORATION; 

RICHARD MOORE, and individual; 

MARK WOOK, and individual; DOES 1 

through 25,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01242-AWI-JLT 

ORDER STRIKING AUGUST 22, 2012 

ORDER TO REMAND AND 

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO REOPEN THIS ACTION

(Doc. No. 33)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT 

TW & COMPANY, INCORPORATED

(Doc. No. 35)

Case 1:11-cv-01242-JLT Document 39 Filed 01/26/15 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

27

28

2

defendants. See id. No defendant filed an opposition to this motion, and it was taken under 

submission on December 13, 2013. 

Legal Standards

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or all 

of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy 

Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment but has not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary 

dismissal must be effected through Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a); 

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent 

part: “Except as provided in [Rule 41(a)(1)], an action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s 

instance save upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems 

proper. . . . Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under this paragraph is without 

prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Hargis v. Foster, 312 F.3d 404, 412 (9th Cir. 2003). “A 

district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant 

can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” WPP Lux. Gamma Three Sarl 

v. Spot Runner, Inc., 655 F.3d 1039, 1058 n.6 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Discussion

With respect to Plaintiff’s request to re-open, the request is proper and well founded. This 

case was inadvertently closed due to a mistaken remand in an unrelated case. It seems that the 

Clerk’s order of docket correction should have re-opened proceedings, but for some reason it did 

not. The Court will order the Clerk’s office to formally reopen this matter and formally strike the 

erroneous remand order. 

 With respect to dismissal of the bankrupt defendant T.W. and Company, courts have 

recognized that a dismissal of bankrupt defendant will not violate the 11 U.S.C. § 362 automatic 

bankruptcy stay if the dismissal is consistent with the bankruptcy stay. See O’Donnell v. Vencor, 

Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1110 (9t h Cir. 2006); Dean v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 72 F.3d 754, 755 

(9th Cir. 1995); Miller v. Media Servs. Acquisition Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272, *3 

(W.D. Wash. June 6, 2011); Banta v. Medical Staffing Network, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92348, 

Case 1:11-cv-01242-JLT Document 39 Filed 01/26/15 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

27

28

3

*2-*4 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 17, 2010). Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(2) have been granted despite a 

bankruptcy stay. See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Greenstreet Props., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

85318 (D. Ariz. June 17, 2013); Miller, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60272 at *3-*4; Banta, 2010 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 92348 at *2-*4. In accord with these cases, the bankruptcy stay would not prevent 

dismissal of T.W. & Company. See id. 

Otherwise, in the absence of an opposition by any defendant, the Court sees no reason not 

to grant Plaintiff’s requested dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). WPP Lux., 655 F.3d at 1058 n.6. 

T.W. & Company will be dismissed under Rule 41(a)(2). 

 

 ORDER

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion to reopen is GRANTED;

2. The Clerk shall change the status of this case to RE-OPENED; 

3. Doc. No. 33 is STRICKEN from the docket as having been filed in error; 

4. Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss defendant T.W. & Company is GRANTED; 

and 

5. Defendant T.W. & Company is DISMISSED from this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 23, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:11-cv-01242-JLT Document 39 Filed 01/26/15 Page 3 of 3