Avalos v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

E.D. California

Avalos v. The Sherwin-Williams Company

DecidedMay 12, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-00536

StatusUnknown

This text of Avalos v. The Sherwin-Williams Company (Avalos v. The Sherwin-Williams Company) 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. The Sherwin-Williams Company, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GEORGE AVALOS, Case No. 1:21-cv-000536-DAD-SAB

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

14 THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, (ECF No. 9) 15 et al., 16 Defendants.

17 18 This action was filed on March 30, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed 19 a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure. 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: _ May 11, 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. 1:21-cv-000536-DAD-SAB

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

14 THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY, (ECF No. 9) 15 et al., 16 Defendants.

17 18 This action was filed on March 30, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On May 10, 2021, Plaintiff filed 19 a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 20 Civil Procedure. 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: _ May 11, 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. The Sherwin-Williams Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avalos-v-the-sherwin-williams-company-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack