Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00950/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00950-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 21, 2015, Defendant filed an answer. See Doc. No. 4. On August 4, 2015, 

Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement and a request to dismiss this case with prejudice. See Doc. 

No. 6. The notice is signed only by Plaintiff, and although no authority is cited, the Court views 

the request as being made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

1

 As of the date of this 

order, Defendant has not responded to the requested dismissal. 

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, 

 

1

If Defendant had signed the requested dismissal, or if Defendant had not filed an answer, then Plaintiff’s requested 

dismissal would have automatically terminated this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). However, because 

Defendant did file an answer and did not sign the requested dismissal, Rule 41(a)(1) does not apply. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(a); Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

HERTA CARTAGENA,

Plaintiff

v.

RICHARD K. ELIA,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-950 AWI BAM 

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF 

UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO DISMISS

CASE WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 6)

Case 1:15-cv-00950-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 08/11/15 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

111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided 

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 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 unopposed. The Court sees no reason to deny Plaintiff’s 

requested dismissal with prejudice, and therefore will grant Plaintiff’s request and close this case. 

See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(2) request for dismissal with prejudice (Doc. No. 6) is 

GRANTED; and 

2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 11, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00950-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 08/11/15 Page 2 of 2