Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05045/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05045-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGARET L. GAUTHIER,

Plaintiff,

v.

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE SERVICES, 

et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

No. C-14-5045 EMC

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(Docket No. 41)

On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff Margaret L. Gauthier filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. 

See Docket No. 41 (notice). Ms. Gauthier states that she dismisses, without prejudice, “all causes of

actions and all defendants.” Docket No. 41, at 1 (notice).

Ms. Gauthier’s voluntary dismissal is effective as to all Defendants except for Rosicki,

Donnan, Graves & Longoria, LLC (“RDG&L”). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, a

plaintiff may – without a court order – dismiss an action by filing “a notice of dismissal before the

opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(A). Here, all of the Defendants, except for RDG&L, have not served either an answer or a

motion for summary judgment and therefore the voluntary dismissal is effective as to those

defendants. Cf. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that Rule 41(a)(1)

allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order fewer than all of the named defendants). 

However, RDG&L has answered, and therefore voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 is not proper.

Case 3:14-cv-05045-EMC Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 2
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

2

That being said, it may be that RDG&L would not oppose a dismissal without prejudice. Cf.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii) (providing that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by

filing a stipulation). Accordingly, the Court hereby orders RDG&L to file a statement as to whether

it opposes Ms. Gauthier’s request to dismiss all claims against it without prejudice. If RDG&L

opposes the request, it must provide an explanation as to why. RDG&L must file its statement by

February 9, 2015.

Because of the voluntary dismissal as to all Defendants except RDG&L, all briefing and

hearing related to the motions to dismiss (including Ms. Gauthier’s response to the order to show

cause) are hereby VACATED.

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 19, 28 and 37. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2015

_________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-05045-EMC Document 42 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 2