Cameron Beatty v. Sungage Financial, LLC, et al.

Opinion

CAMERON BEATTY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00645-KES-SKO

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO Plaintiff, TERMINATE DEFENDANT SUNGAGE v. FINANCIAL, LLC.

(Doc. 43)

SUNGAGE FINANCIAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants. _____________________________________/ On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff Cameron Beatty filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Claims Against Defendant Sungage Financial, LLC, notifying the Court that this Defendant is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 43). Plaintiff filed this notice before this Defendant served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. As such, Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed their claims as to Defendant Sungage Financial, LLC only with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Constantinides v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff, 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Although Roxanna had filed an answer before Constantinides’s request for dismissal without prejudice, Constantinides could still dismiss without prejudice the County defendants, who had neither answered nor moved for summary judgment.”); Maxx Grp., LLC v. Uriah Prods., LLC, No. 8:24-CV-01651-FWS-MAA, 2024 WL 5694630, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024); City of San Jose v. San Jose Police Officers’ Ass’n, No. 5:12-CV-02904-LHK, 2013 WL 4806453, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2013); 2 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES AND COMMENTARY § 41:10 (observing that the “prevailing answer” to the question “[i]f one defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment but another defendant has not, can the plaintiff still dismiss by notice with respect to the defendant that has not answered or moved for summary judgment” is “yes”). The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendant Sungage Financial, LLC. See Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (The notice of voluntary dismissal “automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.”). This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiff’s case against all remaining Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE