Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00978/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00978-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Noe Garcia-Espinosa
Plaintiff
Verizon Wireless, LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

1

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 December 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the entire action. (Doc. 

9) The notice relies upon Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which “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.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Once such a notice has been 

filed, an order of the Court is not required for the dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii); Wilson v. 

City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has answered or appeared in this 

action. 

///

///

///

///

NOE GARCIA-ESPINOSA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

VERIZON WIRELESS, LLC,,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00978 --- JLT

ORDER CLOSING CASE

Case 1:15-cv-00978-JLT Document 10 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action in light of the notice of dismissal 

with prejudice filed and properly signed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00978-JLT Document 10 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 2