Austin v. Georgetown University

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 GEORGE JARVIS AUSTIN, Case No. 24-cv-00260-DMR

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND 9 v. DEFENDANT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY’S PENDING MOTION 10 GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, et al., FOR SANCTIONS 11 Defendants.

12 Self-represented Plaintiff George Jarvis Austin filed the complaint against Defendant 13 Georgetown University (“Georgetown”) on January 16, 2024. He filed a consent to magistrate 14 judge jurisdiction on January 20, 2024. [Docket No. 3.] He filed a third amended complaint on 15 March 13, 2024 that adds District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers as a defendant. The court 16 ordered Plaintiff to explain in writing why his claim(s) against Judge Gonzalez Rogers should not 17 be dismissed based on judicial immunity.1 [Docket Nos. 14, 19 (Order to Show Cause, “OSC”).] 18 Plaintiff then filed a declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction. [Docket No. 22.] The court 19 ordered Plaintiff to file any motion to withdraw consent by April 5, 2024 and noted that it would 20 refer any such motion to withdraw consent to the general duty judge for resolution. [Docket No. 21 25.] Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw consent and reassign the case on March 22, 2024, which 22 the court referred to the general duty judge. [Docket Nos. 28, 30.] 23 On April 2, 2024, Defendant Georgetown filed a motion to dismiss the third amended 24 complaint. [Docket No. 39.] On April 5, 2024, it filed a motion for sanctions in which it asks the 25 court to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice, declare Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, and impose 26 a pre-filing order on Plaintiff requiring him to seek pre-filing approval in this court prior to filing 27 1 new cases or motions against Georgetown. [Docket No. 51.] Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary 2 dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) the same day. [Docket No. 52.] 3 On April 9, 2024, the court ordered Plaintiff to clarify whether his dismissal was with or without 4 prejudice. [Docket No. 57.] Plaintiff responded the same day and indicated that the dismissal is 5 without prejudice. [Docket No. 60.] Also on April 9, 2024, the Honorable Edward J. Davila 6 denied Plaintiff's motion to withdraw consent. [Docket No. 58.] 7 Plaintiff is entitled to voluntary dismissal of this case without a court order because he 8 filed his notice of voluntary dismissal before service of an answer or a motion for summary g || judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiff dismissed his case on April 5, 10 2024. [Docket No. 52.] As a result, the OSC and Georgetown’s motion to dismiss are moot and 11 the April 17, 2024 initial case management conference is vacated. zs 12 However, Plaintiffs voluntary dismissal does not divest the court of jurisdiction to decide

& 13 Georgetown’s motion for sanctions. See Williamson Family Trust v. CIT Group/Consumer Fin.,

14. Inc., 205 F. App’x 616, 617 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S.

15 384, 395-96 (1990)); United States v. Real Prop. Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, A 16 || 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 n.6 (9th Cir. 2008) (district courts may consider collateral issues “such as

3 17 attorney fees or sanctions” following voluntary dismissal). Accordingly, that motion remains 1g || pending. The May 23, 2024 hearing on Georgetown’s motion for sanctions is VACATED and 19 may be re-set, if necessary, upon completion of the briefing. ASS DISTR IG> KD □□ 20 eS IT IS SO ORDERED. □□ Spa ORDEREMY \" 5 Dated: April 10, 2024 irk “ . < 23 LAD lfUG □□□ Zs D) dpe M. □□ □□ 24 ANU Mi) C ke o> □□ 25 DS £ Y . 26 VORTRICLS 27 28