Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00913/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00913-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Defendant
Gregory Gray
Plaintiff
John McLaughlin
Plaintiff
Jennifer Ollar
Plaintiff
Bethany Williams
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER OLLAR; GREGORY GRAY; 

BETHANY WILLIAMS; and JOHN 

McLAUGHLIN, individually and on behalf 

of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, 

INC., a Delaware corporation,

Defendant.

No. 1:16-cv-00913-DAD-SKO

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE

(Doc. No. 25)

On December 2, 2016, plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of 

this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. No. 25.) Under 

Rule 41(a), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if he or she files “a notice or 

dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment” 

or “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

41(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). Here, defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. has not filed an answer or a 

motion for summary judgment, but has filed a motion to dismiss. (See Doc. No. 21.) “Even if the 

defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff may terminate his action voluntarily by filing 

a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).” Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 

1995) (citing Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1265 (9th Cir. 1970)). In light of this, this action 

Case 1:16-cv-00913-DAD-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/05/16 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

has terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 

(9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed without prejudice. 

Accordingly, the court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case. The pending motion 

to dismiss (Doc. No. 21) is dismissed as having been rendered moot by this order. All court dates 

and deadlines previously set in this matter are vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 5, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00913-DAD-SKO Document 26 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 2