Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00409/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-00409-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sandra Wiltcher, a single woman,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MetLife Bank NA, a Texas corporation, 

named as Met Life Bank NA dba MetLife 

Home Loans; Freddie Mac, a Virginia 

corporation; Quality Loan Service, a 

California corporation; McCarthy Holthus 

& Levine, an Arizona professional 

corporation; and Matthew A. Silverman, an 

individual, 

Defendants. 

No. CV-13-00409-PHX-GMS

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss of Defendants McCarthy, 

Holthus and Levine (“MHS”) and Matthew A. Silverman. (Doc. 6.) Also pending is 

Plaintiff Sandra Wiltcher’s Motion to Dismiss (Voluntary Dismissal). (Doc. 7.) 

Defendants MHS and Silverman object to Wiltcher’s Voluntary Dismissal. (Doc. 8.) 

Defendants have filed neither an answer nor a summary judgment motion. 

 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to 

voluntarily dismiss her action before the defendant serves an answer or moves for 

summary judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). The 

dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. Here, none of the 

Defendants have served an answer. Nor has any Defendant filed a motion for summary 

Case 2:13-cv-00409-GMS Document 9 Filed 07/23/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

judgment. MHS and Silverman assert, without citation, that Wiltcher “has no authority to 

voluntary [sic] dismiss Complaint after an appearance has been made.” (Doc. 8 at 1.) 

They argue that Wiltcher’s claims against them should be dismissed with prejudice. 

However, their Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), as neither an answer nor a motion 

for summary judgment, does not terminate Wiltcher’s Rule 41(a)(1) right of dismissal by 

notice. Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 1970) (ordering district court to 

dismiss pursuant to notice of voluntary dismissal though a hearing on defendants’ 

12(b)(6) motion to dismiss). The Court notes that even if Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 

had been considered on the merits, it would not necessarily result in Wiltcher’s claims 

being dismissed with prejudice. “Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend 

is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint would not be 

cured by amendment.” Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007). 

 Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6) is therefore DENIED AS MOOT in light 

of Wiltcher’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 7). The Clerk of Court is directed to 

terminate the action. 

 Dated this 23rd day of July, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-00409-GMS Document 9 Filed 07/23/13 Page 2 of 2