Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00971/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00971-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMMY MCLEAN

Plaintiff,

v.

BEATRICE FERNANDEZ; CITIBANK 

(SOUTH DAKOTA), N.A.; DISTRICT 

DIRECTOR OF THE INTERNAL 

REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES OF AMERICA; ALL PERSONS 

UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL 

OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, 

ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE 

PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE 

COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO 

PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD 

ON PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE THERETO, and 

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT

ORDER DISMISSING ONLY DEFENDANTS 

“ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING 

ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, 

TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN 

THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE 

COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO THE 

PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON 

PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE THERETO”

(Doc. No. 28)

On March 14, 2016, plaintiff Tammy McLean filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, as to 

defendants “all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or 

interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to the plaintiffs’ title, or any cloud on 

plaintiffs’ title thereto.” (Doc. No. 28.) The defendants so identified have not filed a responsive 

pleading in this action. In light of this, defendants “all persons unknown claiming any legal or 

equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to 

Case 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 03/21/16 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

the plaintiffs’ title, or any cloud on plaintiffs’ title thereto” have been terminated from the action, 

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), 

and are hereby DISMISSED. This dismissal does not affect the status of the remaining 

defendants named in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 21, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00971-DAD-JLT Document 31 Filed 03/21/16 Page 2 of 2