Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04623/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-04623-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JERRY P. DIZON, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 12-4623-SC 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE, 

RETAINING JURISDICTION OVER 

DISCIPLINARY MATTER

On December 11, 2012, the Court adopted as its Order the 

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins that the 

complaint of Plaintiff Jerry Dizon against Defendant Wells Fargo 

Home Mortgage be dismissed. ECF No. 16. Since both Judge Cousins 

and the undersigned shared a concern over the lack of diligence 

evinced by Plaintiff's counsel, Mandip Purewal of the National 

Consumer Law Group, and because the record showed that Mr. Purewal 

had failed to comply with one of Judge Cousins's orders, the Court 

referred to Judge Cousins the matter of whether and how Mr. Purewal 

should be disciplined. Id.

On December 14, 2012, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a 

request to have his case dismissed with prejudice. ECF No. 18. 

Though voluntary dismissals like the one requested here generally 

are without prejudice, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B), Plaintiff 
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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

has a right to dismissal without a court order in this case, 

because Defendant has neither filed an answer nor a motion for 

summary judgment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, 

the Court ORDERS that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, 

pursuant to Plaintiff's request. 

However, Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of his case does not 

divest the Court of jurisdiction over the pending disciplinary 

matter. See Williamson Family Trust v. CIT Group/Consumer Fin., 

Inc., 205 F. App'x 616, 617 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cooter & Gell 

v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990)); see also United 

States v. Real Prop. Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 

545 F.3d 1134, 1145 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008) (affirming Cooter & Gell's 

holding that district courts may consider collateral issues "such 

as attorney fees or sanctions" following voluntary dismissal). The 

Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff Dizon and Mr. Purewal for 

purposes of resolving the pending disciplinary matter. That matter 

remains referred to Judge Cousins. 

The Court ORDERS Mr. Purewal to provide a true and complete 

copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to file a declaration stating 

he has done so within five (5) days of the signature date of this 

Order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 19, 2012 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE