Avalos v. Stephen Investments, Inc.

E.D. California

Avalos v. Stephen Investments, Inc.

DecidedMarch 5, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-01818

StatusUnknown

This text of Avalos v. Stephen Investments, Inc. (Avalos v. Stephen Investments, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Avalos v. Stephen Investments, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GEORGE AVALOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01818-DAD-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 13 v. TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

14 STEPHEN INVESTMENTS, INC., (ECF No. 11) 15 Defendant.

16 17 This action was filed on December 23, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff 18 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff is dismissing the action with prejudice and without an award 20 of costs or fees. (Id.) 21 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 22 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 23 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 24 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 25 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 26 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 27 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the 1 | district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co.., Inc., 193 2 | F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. 3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this 4 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 7 | Dated: _ March 5, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GEORGE AVALOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01818-DAD-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET 13 v. TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

14 STEPHEN INVESTMENTS, INC., (ECF No. 11) 15 Defendant.

16 17 This action was filed on December 23, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On March 4, 2021, Plaintiff 18 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure. (ECF No. 11.) Plaintiff is dismissing the action with prejudice and without an award 20 of costs or fees. (Id.) 21 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 22 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 23 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 24 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 25 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 26 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 27 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the 1 | district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co.., Inc., 193 2 | F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. 3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this 4 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. nf ee 7 | Dated: _ March 5, 2021

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Avalos v. Stephen Investments, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avalos-v-stephen-investments-inc-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack