Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01029/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01029-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC
Defendant
Ford Motor Company
Defendant
McKayla Hollins
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

MCKAYLA HOLLINS, an individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation, CARMAX AUTO 

SUPERSTORES CALIFORNIA, LLC, a 

Virginia limited liability company, and 

DOES 1-30, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-01029-DAD-JLT

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 

COURT TO TERMINATE DEFENDANT 

CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES 

CALIFORNIA, LLC

(Doc. No. 15)

On October 3, 2016, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of defendant CarMax 

Auto Superstores California, LLC without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. No. 15.) 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 CarMax Auto 

Superstores California, LLC has not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, but has 

filed a motion to dismiss. (See Doc. No. 10.) “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, 

Case 1:16-cv-01029-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 10/04/16 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

422 F.2d 1264, 1265 (9th Cir. 1970)). In light of this, defendant CarMax Auto Superstores 

California, LLC has been dismissed without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson 

v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Accordingly, the court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate defendant CarMax Auto 

Superstores California, LLC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 4, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01029-DAD-JLT Document 16 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 2