Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00057/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Abe Hildebrand
Defendant
Span Construction & Engineering, Inc.
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 October 5, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to voluntary dismiss this action with 

prejudice. See Doc. No. 12. 

 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 

SPAN CONSTRUCTION & 

ENGINEERING, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

ABE HILDEBRAND, an individual,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00057-AWI-BAM 

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF 

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 6)

Case 1:15-cv-00057-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 10/06/15 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

action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 

1506. 

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 its right to voluntarily dismiss its complaint with prejudice under 

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 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: October 6, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00057-AWI-BAM Document 14 Filed 10/06/15 Page 2 of 2