Al Badri v. Mayorkas

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 4, 2024
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01708
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAMZA A. AL BADRI; et. al., Case No.: 3:23-cv-01708-RBM-KSC

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISMISSING CASE 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS; et. al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 15, 2023, Plaintiffs Hamza A. Al Badri, Ilham H. Sameen, and 19 Ahmed Hamza Abed Al Badri (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint to Compel 20 Agency Action under the APA and for Mandamus Relief (“Complaint”) against 21 Defendants Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, and Madeline T. 22 Kristoff (collectively, “Defendants”). (Doc. 1.) On March 29, 2024, before Defendants 23 answered the Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a Voluntary Dismissal by Plaintiffs Without Court 24 Order (Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)) (“Voluntary Dismissal”). (Doc. 7.) Plaintiffs’ 25 Voluntary Dismissal states, “Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, … hereby 26 voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in 27 that Defendants have not ‘serve[d] either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’” 28 (Id.) 1 “Rule 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to ‘dismiss an action without a court order by filing: 2 || (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for 3 ||summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 4 ||appeared.’” Dougan v. Centerplate, Inc., Case No.: 22-CV-1496 JLS (SBC), 2023 WL 5 || 8604152, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2023) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)). “The Ninth 6 || Circuit has interpreted Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(Q) to confer upon plaintiffs an ‘‘absolute right’ ... 7 ||to dismiss an action.’” Jd. (quoting Am. Soccer Co. v. Score First Enterprises, a Div. of 8 || Kevlar Indus., 187 F.3d 1108, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999)). “Indeed, ‘once a notice of voluntary 9 || dismissal is filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and 10 cannot exercise discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal.’” □□□ 11 ||/(quoting Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1076 (9th Cir. 1999)). 12 || Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case in its entirety. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ||DATE: April 4, 2024 15 16 eth iesnask,, Qe tery □□ 7 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ' MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28