Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01892/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01892-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN UNITED CENTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E.I.U., INC. aka ELECTRICAL &

INSTRUMENTATION UNLIMITED OF

CALIFORNIA, INC. aka E.I.U. OF

CALIFORNIA, INC. aka E.I.I and

KELLOGG, BROWN & ROOT, INC.,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-07-1892 AWI SMS

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE

OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

On May 6, 2008, Plaintiff filed a stipulation and proposed order dismissing Defendant

Kellogg , Brown & Root with prejudice. Doc. 23. The court construes this as a notice of

dismissal made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i).

The Ninth Circuit has 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. 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. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of

the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. 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. 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. Such a dismissal leaves the parties as though no

action had been brought.

Case 1:07-cv-01892-AWI -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/07/08 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

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

Defendant Kellogg, Brown & Root has filed a motion to dismiss (Doc. 20) but no answer

or summary judgment motion. Though Plaintiff has termed this a stipulation, the court construes

the filing as a notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(a)(1)(i). Plaintiff’s dismissal with

prejudice takes effect without need of court approval or court order. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s pending motion to dismiss is

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01892-AWI -SMS Document 24 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 2