Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04797/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-04797-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:2671 Federal Tort Claims Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

*E-FILED 3/7/06*

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

BART LAINE, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 05-04797 RS

ORDER RE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, DEPT. OF FISH

AND GAME'S MOTION TO

DISMISS

Defendant State of California, by and through its Department of Fish and Game, moves to

dismiss the claims against in this action on grounds that the Eleventh Amendment precludes plaintiff

from bring those claims in federal court. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without

oral argument, pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 (b).

The parties have agreed that dismissal of the State is appropriate; the only question was

whether the dismissal should be with or with out prejudice. On March 2, 2006, however, Plaintiff

filed a Notice of Dismissal without prejudice as to the state of California, Department of Fish and

Game, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41 (a) (1) (i). The effect of that notice

was to terminate automatically the action as to the State of California, notwithstanding the pending

motion, and to divest the Court of any jurisdiction to impose conditions on the dismissal. Concha v.

London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[e]ven if the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss,

the plaintiff may terminate his action voluntarily by filing a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).

[Citation] The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required.”); Commercial Space

Case 5:05-cv-04797-RS Document 25 Filed 03/07/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Management Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999) (“once a notice of voluntary dismissal is

filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and cannot exercise

discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal.”)

Accordingly, the motion is denied as MOOT. The hearing date is vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/7/06 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-04797-RS Document 25 Filed 03/07/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

James Charles Brennan james.brennan@usdoj.gov,

Claire T. Cormier claire.cormier@usdoj.gov

Colleen O'Brien colleen@eastbayattorneys.com, info@eastbayattorneys.com

Troy B. Overton troy.overton@doj.ca.gov,

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the Court's CM/ECF program. 

Dated: 3/7/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-04797-RS Document 25 Filed 03/07/06 Page 3 of 3