Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00597-21/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richard P. Berman
Plaintiff
George Bertsch
Defendant
County of Fresno
Defendant
Margaret Mims
Defendant
John Reynolds
Defendant
Tracy Sink
Defendant
The Judicial Council of California
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

RICHARD P. BERMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN REYNOLDS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00597- SAB

ORDER VACATING MAY 27, 2016 

HEARING ON MOTION TO DISMISS AND 

GRANTING PLAINTIFF‟S MOTION TO 

DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA 

(ECF Nos. 82, 84)

Plaintiff Richard Berman filed this action in Fresno County Superior Court on March 26, 

2013. (ECF No. 1-1 at 5-24.) On April 23, 2013, Defendants John Reynolds, George Bertsch, 

Tracy Sink, Margaret Mims, and County of Fresno removed the action to the Eastern District of 

California. (ECF No. 1.) On May 29, 2013, an order issued granting Defendants Bertsch, Mims 

and Reynolds‟ motion to dismiss and judgment was entered in favor of these defendants. (ECF 

Nos. 11, 12.) On May 11, 2016, in response to an order to show cause, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

dismiss Defendant Judicial Council of California from this action. (ECF No. 82.) On May 13, 

2016, Defendants Sink and County of Fresno filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion to 

dismiss. 

The Court finds this motion suitable for decision on the pleadings and the hearing set for 

May 27, 2016 shall be vacated. However, the May 27, 2016 hearing on the parties‟ motions in 

limine shall remain on calendar.

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 85 Filed 05/17/16 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

Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an 

action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves 

either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by 

all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). The Judicial Council of California has not

appeared in this action and the Court construes Defendants Sink and County of Fresno‟s 

statement of non-opposition as a stipulation to dismiss the Judicial Council of California from 

this action. 

“[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), „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.‟ ” 

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). “[A] dismissal under 

Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no 

action had been brought, the defendant can‟t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to

do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The hearing set for May 27, 2016 on Plaintiff‟s motion to dismiss is vacated;

2. Plaintiff‟s motion to dismiss the Judicial Council of California from this action is 

granted; and

3. The Judicial Council of California is dismissed from this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 16, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00597-SAB Document 85 Filed 05/17/16 Page 2 of 2