Block v. Brar

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENDRIK BLOCK, Case No. 1:22-cv-01317-ADA-SAB

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

JASKIRAT KAUR BRAR, (ECF No. 16) Defendants.

On August 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. (ECF No. 16.) “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th 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 district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ August 3, 2023

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE