Andrew James Elliott v. BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration Inc, et al.

Opinion

ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2472-RSH-SBC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT BAE SYSTEMS AND v. GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT [ECF No. 5] BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION AND INTEGRATION INC, et al., Defendants. Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint motion seeking leave for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint and to dismiss defendant BAE Systems from this action without prejudice. ECF No. 5. For the reasons below, the Court grants the Parties’ motion for leave. On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against defendants BAE Systems, Inc., BAE Systems, BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems Integration, Inc., BAE Systems Info & Electronics Systems, Inc., Kerry Bliss and Andre Richardson, and various Doe defendants in California Superior Court. ECF No. 1-2 at 3– 23. On September 19, 2025, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 4. In the joint stipulation filed on October 1, 2025, Defendants contend “BAE Systems” and “BAE Systems Info & Electronics Systems, Inc.” are not known entities or registered companies. ECF No. 5 at 2; see also ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4. Plaintiff stipulates to the dismissal of “BAE Systems” only. ECF No. 5 at 3. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In cases with multiple defendants, Rule 41(a)(1) “allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order fewer than all of the named defendants.” Pedrina v. Han Kuk Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). A voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is self-executing and requires no further action by the court. United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145–46 (9th Cir. 2008). In light of Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal, it is confirmed that defendant “BAE Systems” is DISMISSED from this action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs additionally request leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Rule 15(a)(2) requires courts to “freely give leave [to amend] pleadings when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court order where the opposing party consents in writing. Id. Considering Defendants’ non- opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ motion for leave as follows: // // // // 1. Plaintiff may file a FAC within two days of date of this Order. 2. Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, Defendants shall have thirty days from the date of service of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to file a response. 3. Plaintiff ex parte application for an order to enforce the Parties’ stipulation [ECF No. 6] is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: October 15, 2025 Fok 7 Howe g Hon. Robert S. Hute United States District Judge