Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01419/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01419-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 350
Nature of Suit: Motor Vehicle Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER KASPER, M.D. )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

GREGORY PAUL PULLEN, )

ROSEANN M. PULLEN, and DOES )

1 through 20, )

)

)

Defendants. )

)

)

No. CV-F-05-1419 OWW/DLB

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL (Doc. 17), DENYING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE 

AS MOOT (Docs. 13-14),

VACATING ORAL ARGUMENT SET

FOR JUNE 26, 2006, AND

DISMISSING ACTION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE 

By this action, plaintiff is seeking damages against

defendants for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff in an

automobile accident on September 20, 2005. On April 17, 2006,

plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answers was heard and

taken under submission pending plaintiff’s decision whether to

dismiss this action. 

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

plaintiff now moves to dismiss this action without prejudice and

without costs to any of the parties. Plaintiff seeks voluntary

Case 1:05-cv-01419-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

dismissal of this action because plaintiff has settled her claim

for uninsured motorist benefits under her policy of automobile

insurance and assigned her rights against defendants to her

insurer to the extent of uninsured motorist benefits paid by her

insurer. Plaintiff asserts that she does not believe further

prosecution of this action against the defendants will likely

result in any net recovery to plaintiff and that defendants will

suffer no prejudice from dismissal of this action. Plaintiff has

noticed the motion for hearing on June 26, 2006.

Defendants, who are proceeding in pro per, have not filed an

opposition to this motion within the time prescribed in Rule 78-

230, Local Rules of Practice.

Plaintiff has demonstrated grounds for dismissal of this

action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and there is no basis for

concluding that defendants will be prejudiced by the granting of

the motion.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to strike defendants’ answers is

denied as moot.

2. Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal of this

action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure is granted.

3. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without

costs to any party.

4. Oral argument set for June 26, 2006 is vacated.

///

Case 1:05-cv-01419-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Dated: _June 15____, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER________

 OLIVER W. WANGER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01419-OWW -DLB Document 19 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 3