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

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-02472
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREW JAMES ELLIOTT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-2472-RSH-SBC

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO DISMISS 14 DEFENDANT BAE SYSTEMS AND v. GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A 15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16 [ECF No. 5] BAE SYSTEMS INFORMATION AND 17 ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS 18 INTEGRATION INC, et al., Defendants. 19 20 21 22 Pending before the Court is the Parties’ joint motion seeking leave for Plaintiff to 23 file an amended complaint and to dismiss defendant BAE Systems from this action without 24 prejudice. ECF No. 5. For the reasons below, the Court grants the Parties’ motion for leave. 25 I. STIPULATION TO DISMISS BAE SYSTEMS 26 On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff initiated the instant action against defendants BAE 27 Systems, Inc., BAE Systems, BAE Systems Information and Electronic Systems 28 Integration, Inc., BAE Systems Info & Electronics Systems, Inc., Kerry Bliss and Andre 1 Richardson, and various Doe defendants in California Superior Court. ECF No. 1-2 at 3– 2 23. On September 19, 2025, Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of 3 diversity jurisdiction. ECF No. 1 at 4. 4 In the joint stipulation filed on October 1, 2025, Defendants contend “BAE Systems” 5 and “BAE Systems Info & Electronics Systems, Inc.” are not known entities or registered 6 companies. ECF No. 5 at 2; see also ECF No. 1 at ¶ 4. Plaintiff stipulates to the dismissal 7 of “BAE Systems” only. ECF No. 5 at 3. 8 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a plaintiff 9 may dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the 10 opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Fed. R. Civ. 11 P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In cases with multiple defendants, Rule 41(a)(1) “allows a plaintiff to 12 dismiss without a court order fewer than all of the named defendants.” Pedrina v. Han Kuk 13 Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). A voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 14 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is self-executing and requires no further action by the court. United States 15 v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145–46 (9th Cir. 2008). In light of Plaintiff’s notice 16 of dismissal, it is confirmed that defendant “BAE Systems” is DISMISSED from this 17 action WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 II. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 19 Plaintiffs additionally request leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). 20 Rule 15(a)(2) requires courts to “freely give leave [to amend] pleadings when justice so 21 requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Further, a party may amend its pleading without a court 22 order where the opposing party consents in writing. Id. Considering Defendants’ non- 23 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion and for good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the Parties’ 24 motion for leave as follows: 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 1. Plaintiff may file a FAC within two days of date of this Order. 2 2. Pursuant to the Parties’ stipulation, Defendants shall have thirty days from 3 || the date of service of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint to file a response. 4 3. Plaintiff ex parte application for an order to enforce the Parties’ stipulation 5 || [ECF No. 6] is DENIED as moot. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 7 ||Dated: October 15, 2025 Fok 7 Howe g Hon. Robert S. Hute United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28