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

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00645
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 CAMERON BEATTY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00645-KES-SKO

9 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO Plaintiff, TERMINATE DEFENDANT SUNGAGE 10 v. FINANCIAL, LLC.

11 (Doc. 43)

12 SUNGAGE FINANCIAL, LLC, et al.,

14 Defendants. 15 _____________________________________/ 16 17 On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff Cameron Beatty filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of 18 Claims Against Defendant Sungage Financial, LLC, notifying the Court that this Defendant is 19 voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. 43). 20 Plaintiff filed this notice before this Defendant served either an answer or a motion for 21 summary judgment. As such, Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed their claims as to Defendant 22 Sungage Financial, LLC only with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules 23 of Civil Procedure. See Constantinides v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff, 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 1992) 24 (“Although Roxanna had filed an answer before Constantinides’s request for dismissal without 25 prejudice, Constantinides could still dismiss without prejudice the County defendants, who had 26 neither answered nor moved for summary judgment.”); Maxx Grp., LLC v. Uriah Prods., LLC, 27 No. 8:24-CV-01651-FWS-MAA, 2024 WL 5694630, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024); City of San 28 Jose v. San Jose Police Officers’ Ass’n, No. 5:12-CV-02904-LHK, 2013 WL 4806453, at *2 (N.D. 1 Cal. Sept. 9, 2013); 2 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES AND COMMENTARY § 41:10 2 (observing that the “prevailing answer” to the question “[i]f one defendant has answered or moved 3 for summary judgment but another defendant has not, can the plaintiff still dismiss by notice with 4 respect to the defendant that has not answered or moved for summary judgment” is “yes”). 5 The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendant Sungage 6 Financial, LLC. See Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (The notice of 7 voluntary dismissal “automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects 8 of the notice.”). 9 This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiff’s case against all remaining 10 Defendants. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12

13 Dated: January 13, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28