Avalos v. Western Mobile Glass

E.D. California

Avalos v. Western Mobile Glass

DecidedDecember 14, 2020

Docket1:20-cv-01392

StatusUnknown

This text of Avalos v. Western Mobile Glass (Avalos v. Western Mobile Glass) 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. Western Mobile Glass, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GEORGE AVALOS, Case No. 1:20-cv-01392-NONE-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN THIS ACTION TO DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING THE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET TO 14 WESTERN MOBILE GLASS, et al., REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 11)

16 17 This action was filed on September 30, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On December 11, 2020, 18 Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 11.) 20 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 21 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 22 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 23 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 24 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 25 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 26 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, 27 the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 1 | F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a district judge to 3 | this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary 4 | dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee 7 | Dated: _December 14, 2020_ ef 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-01392-NONE-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ASSIGN THIS ACTION TO DISTRICT 13 v. JUDGE FOR PURPOSE OF CLOSING THE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET TO 14 WESTERN MOBILE GLASS, et al., REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 11)

16 17 This action was filed on September 30, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On December 11, 2020, 18 Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of 19 Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 11.) 20 “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his 21 action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” 22 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) 23 (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has 24 held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet 25 to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 26 Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, 27 the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 1 | F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. 2 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a district judge to 3 | this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary 4 | dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee 7 | Dated: _December 14, 2020_ ef 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. Western Mobile Glass, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/avalos-v-western-mobile-glass-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack