Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00616/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00616-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc.
Defendant
Dena Phillips
Plaintiff

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. See Doc. 

No. 8. 

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the 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. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the 

dismissal is without prejudice. 

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 

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. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 

DENA PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff

v.

CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-616 AWI GSA 

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 8)

Case 1:15-cv-00616-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 05/12/15 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

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).

No answers to Plaintiff’s complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been filed 

in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. 

Because Plaintiff has exercised her right to voluntarily dismiss her complaint with prejudice under 

Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of 

Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00616-AWI-GSA Document 9 Filed 05/12/15 Page 2 of 2