Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02138/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02138-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE J. GEHRON,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 11cv02138 BTM (JMA)

ORDER

v.

T.D. Service Company, et al.,

Defendants.

On January 20, 2012, the Court received from Plaintiff George J. Gehron a “CIV-110

Request for Dismissal” form, signed by Plaintiff. See Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 581 Form 1. The

form requests of the Clerk: “Please dismiss this action as follows: . . . Entire action of all

parties and all causes of action.”

The Court construes this as a notice of dismissal of Plaintiff’s entire complaint. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) (“(A) [T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by

filing: . . . (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a

motion for summary judgment . . . .”). As no Defendants have filed either an answer or a

motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff does not require leave of court to dismiss his case. 

The dismissal of Plaintiff’s entire complaint is without prejudice, as the notice of dismissal

does not indicate otherwise. See id. (“(B) Unless the notice or stipulation provides otherwise,

the dismissal is without prejudice.”).

As a consequence of Plaintiff’s dismissal of this entire action, the Court DENIES as

moot all motions to dismiss, motions to strike and motions to change venue filed by

1 11cv02138 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02138-CAB-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/26/12 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

Defendants (Dkt. Nos. 10, 14, 16, 17 and 18). The Court retains jurisdiction over the two

motions to declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant (Dkt. Nos. 11 and 19), and these motions

remain under consideration. See Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 396 (1990)

(district court retains jurisdiction to impose sanctions after plaintiff voluntarily dismisses action

pursuant to Rule 41 because “[i]t is well established that a federal court may consider

collateral issues after an action is no longer pending.”); Eng v. Marcus & Millichap Co., No.

C 10-05050, 2011 WL 2175207, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (holding that voluntary dismissal

pursuant to Rule 41 does not deprive district court of jurisdiction to consider motion for

sanctions and motion to declare plaintiff vexatious litigant).

DATED: January 24, 2012

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

2 11cv02138 BTM (JMA)

Case 3:11-cv-02138-CAB-JMA Document 44 Filed 01/26/12 Page 2 of 2