Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01750/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01750-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM WALLER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CHRIS PERSING, et. al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-06-1750 AWI TAG

ORDER CLOSING THE CASE

DUE TO VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL WITHOUT

PREJUDICE AND DENYING

DEFENDANTS’S MOTION TO

DISMISS AS MOOT

On February 5, 2007, Plaintiff a motion filed a request to dismiss his complaint without

prejudice. The Court construes this motion as a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).

In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir.

1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of

dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary

judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id.

The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his

claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-

10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court

automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of

the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is

ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for

the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportCase 1:06-cv-01750-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 02/09/07 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

Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal

leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

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

No answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been

filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been

served. Although Defendants have filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a motion to dismiss

is neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment and will not affect a Plaintiff’s right to

voluntarily dismiss his complaint under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) unless the Court takes some action to

convert the Rule 12(b)(6) motion into one for summary judgment. See Swedberg v. Marotzke,

339 F.3d 1139, 1142-46 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court has not acted to convert the Rule 12(b)(6)

motion. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint with

prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk is ordered to close this case in light of Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1)(i)

Dismissal; and

2. Defendants’ pending motion to dismiss is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 8, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01750-AWI-TAG Document 15 Filed 02/09/07 Page 2 of 2