Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01115/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01115-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

Valina, Inc, dba Car Tex, a California

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

American Muffler; and Carlos Lopez, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1115-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing a complaint against American Muffler and

Carlos Lopez on June 13, 2008. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff subsequently attempted to serve American

Muffler with process by serving Luis Lopez, the purported owner of American Muffler, with

copies of the summons and complaint. Dkt. #10. Luis Lopez has filed a motion to dismiss

for insufficient service of process. Dkt. #11. Mr. Lopez asserts that he is neither the owner

of American Muffler nor authorized to accept service on its behalf. Id. at 2.

Mr. Lopez is not named as a defendant in the complaint, nor is he listed on the

summons as a party to be served with process. See Dkt. ##1, 10. Mr. Lopez has not

demonstrated that he has standing to seek dismissal of the claims asserted against American

Muffler. The Court will therefore deny the motion to dismiss.

It appears that Plaintiff wishes to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice

pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff has twice filed

a notice of dismissal, but each time the notice erroneously listed the United States as plaintiff.

Case 2:08-cv-01115-ECV Document 14 Filed 09/19/08 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 -

Dkt. ##12-13. Plaintiff shall, by September 26, 2008, file either a proper notice of dismissal

or a report regarding the status of the case. The case will be dismissed pursuant to Rule 41(b)

if Plaintiff fails to comply with this order. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th

Cir.1992) (district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for

failing to comply with an order).

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Luis Lopez’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. #11) is denied.

2. Plaintiff shall file a proper notice of dismissal or a status report by September

26, 2008.

3. The Clerk is directed to terminate this action without further notice if Plaintiff

fails to comply with this order. 

DATED this 18th day of September, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01115-ECV Document 14 Filed 09/19/08 Page 2 of 2