Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00825/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00825-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 150
Nature of Suit: Overpayments &amp; Enforcement of Judgments
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

On May 29, 2013, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit for unjust enrichment, restitution, and money 

had and received. Between July and September, 2013, all Defendants filed an answer. On March 

20, 2015, Defendants Lisa Carrington, Laura Santos, and Cheri Lueck were dismissed from this 

case with prejudice pursuant to a settlement. On November 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a status 

report. See Doc. No. 48. In this report, Plaintiff states that the remaining Defendant, Donald L.

Atkins, was discharged from bankruptcy on April 2, 2015. See id. Plaintiff then requested that 

the Court dismiss Donald Atkins from this case. See id. As of the date of this order, no responses 

to Plaintiff’s status report/request for dismissal have been filed. Indeed, since November 2, there 

have been no further filings of any kind. 

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, but has 

not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal must be effected through 

Federal 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 

PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff

v.

LISA CARRINGTON, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-825 AWI MJS 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

DONALD L. ATKINS AND CLOSING 

CASE IN LIGHT OF REQUEST FOR 

DISMISSAL

(Doc. No. 48)

Case 1:13-cv-00825-AWI-MJS Document 49 Filed 12/01/15 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

in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on 

terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). “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.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, Defendant Atkins has filed an answer without counterclaims, and has not objected or 

responded to Plaintiff’s requested dismissal. Given the time that has now passed, the Court will 

view Plaintiff’s request as being an unopposed Rule 41(a)(2) motion. The Court sees no reason to 

deny Plaintiff’s requested dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975. 

Because Defendant Atkins is the last remaining defendant, the Court will dismiss Atkins and close 

this case.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(2) request for dismissal of Defendant Donald L. Atkins (Doc. 

No. 48) is GRANTED; and 

2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00825-AWI-MJS Document 49 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 2