Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01265/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01265-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dimare Fresh, Inc.
Plaintiff
Sun Pacific Marketing Cooperative, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIMARE FRESH, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUN PACIFIC MARKETING

COOPERATIVE, INC.,

Defendant.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CIV-F-06-1265 AWI SMS

ORDER CLOSING CASE DUE TO

PLAINTIFF’S VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL

On September 22, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a). Doc. 16. In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the

Ninth Circuit explained:

Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his

action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary

judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing

Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir.

1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of

dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary

judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id.

The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his

claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10

(9th Cir. 1993). The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court

automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of

the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is

ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for

the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. DavenportHarris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal

leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Case 1:06-cv-01265-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/25/06 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

No answer to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motion for summary judgment has been filed

in this case and it appears that no such answer or summary judgment motion has been served. 

Because Plaintiff has exercised her right to voluntarily dismiss her complaint without prejudice

under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk close this case in light of Plaintiff’s

Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01265-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2