Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01622/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01622-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE ACOSTA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELSID, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01622-LJO-SAB

ORDER STRIKING INCORRECT FILING

ORDER VACATING ALL DATES AND 

DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 

CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET TO 

REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(ECF Nos. 9, 10, 12) 

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement informing the Court that the 

parties have reached settlement of this action. (ECF No. 8.) Pursuant to the filing, on January 8, 

2020, the Court issued an order requiring the parties to file dispositional documents. (ECF No. 

11.) On January 8, 2020, after the Court issued the order, but prior to the order being entered on 

the docket, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 9.) On the 

same date, Plaintiff also filed a notice of errata requesting the notice be stricken because the 

notice of voluntary dismissal contained the incorrect name for Plaintiff in the caption. (ECF No. 

10.) Plaintiff then filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the correct name in the caption. (ECF No. 12.) 

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘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.’ ” 

Case 1:19-cv-01622-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/09/20 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

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 

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

held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 

to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 

Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, 

the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the 

district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 

F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The notice of voluntary dismissal filed on January 8, 2020 using the incorrect 

name for Plaintiff (ECF No. 9), is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD;

2. All pending dates are VACATED;

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust 

the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01622-LJO-SAB Document 13 Filed 01/09/20 Page 2 of 2