Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00488/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00488-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLUB GRAVITY, INC. dba PLANET ROCK;)

RICHARD TRINH; AMPHOUVAHNA ) 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB

CHANTHALAMGSY, )

Plaintiffs, ) 

) ORDER*

v. ) 

)

MOHAMMED JACK MOGHADDAM; CITY OF )

MARYSVILLE; MARYSVILLE POLICE )

DEPARTMENT; JOHN OSBORNE; GARY )

PRICE; GREG GOMER, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 19, 2007, Defendant Greg Gomer moved for summary

judgment on each cause of action in Plaintiffs’ Complaint on the

ground that he “has no liability under any of the allegations or

averments of the complaint.” (Mot. at 2:1-3.) Mr. Gomer also moved

for $27,625.00 in attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). (Id. at

6:14-15.) On February 13, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a document in which

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/10/08 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 All subsequent references to Rules are to the Federal Rules of 1

Civil Procedure.

2

they purport to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice as to

Mr. Gromer under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). (Notice of 1

Voluntary Dismissal of Greg Go[]mer, Dkt No. 54.) On February 14,

2008, the Clerk of the Court entered a notice that Mr. Gomer was

terminated as a party in this action.

Plaintiffs’ dismissal of Mr. Gomer, however, was defective

under Rule 41(a) because Mr. Gomer had already submitted an answer in

this action as well as a motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff did

not obtain a stipulation of dismissal by all parties who have

appeared, nor did plaintiff request a court order. (Dkt. Nos. 14,

41.) “[T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by

filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposition party serves

either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a

stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” 

Rule 41(a). However, the docket entry for Plaintiffs’ notice of

voluntary dismissal reveals that it was served on all parties and

there is no indication that the parties did not intend to be bound by

the dismissal. Cf. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. M.T.S. Enters., Inc., 811

F.2d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 1987) (finding formal requirements of Rule

41(a)(1) need not be followed to effectuate dismissal when intent of

parties was to dismiss). Accordingly, this order will serve to

effectuate Plaintiffs’ dismissal as required by Rule 41(a). But

first, the request for attorney’s fees must be addressed.

In support of his request for attorney’s fees, Mr. Gomer

simply declares “I have incurred approximately $27,625.00 in the

defense of this litigation. I say approximately as I am including the

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/10/08 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

anticipated costs that will be incurred between now and any ruling on

my Motion for Summary Judgment. As of this writing my costs are

$23,625.00.” This conclusory declaration is insufficient to justify

an award of attorney’s fees. See L.R. 54-293(b)(4). Therefore, Mr.

Gomer’s request for attorney’s fees is denied. Mr. Gomer is hereby

dismissed from this action with prejudice as Plaintiff requested. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00488-GEB-EFB Document 56 Filed 03/10/08 Page 3 of 3