Dakavia Management Corp., et al. v. Brandon Bigelow, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:20-cv-00448
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 DAKAVIA MANAGEMENT CORP., et No. 1:20-cv-00448-JLT-SKO al. 5 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF Plaintiffs, COURT TO TERMINATE CERTAIN 6 DEFENDANTS v. 7 (Doc. 161) 8 BRANDON BIGELOW, et al. 9 Defendant. 10 11 On November 14, 2025, Plaintiffs Dakavia Management Corp., Monte Vista Estates, LLC, 12 and Lamar Estates, LLC filed a “Notice for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice of Claims 13 Against Defendants Invigorate Healthcare, Inc., Invigorate Healthcare, LLC, Invigorate Healthcare 14 Management, LLC, Monte Vista Care Holdings, LLC, Lamar Holdings, LLC, and Rodney 15 Zwahlen,” notifying the Court that these Defendants are voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. 16 (Doc. 161.) 17 Plaintiffs filed this notice before any of the named opposing parties served either an answer 18 or a motion for summary judgment. As such, Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims as 19 to named non-appearing Defendants Invigorate Healthcare, Inc.; Invigorate Healthcare, LLC; 20 Invigorate Healthcare Management, LLC; Monte Vista Care Holdings, LLC; Lamar Holdings, 21 LLC; and Rodney Zwahlen only without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal 22 Rules of Civil Procedure. See Constantinides v. Los Angeles Cnty. Sheriff, 955 F.2d 47 (9th Cir. 23 1992) (“Although Roxanna had filed an answer before Constantinides’s request for dismissal 24 without prejudice, Constantinides could still dismiss without prejudice the County defendants, who 25 had neither answered nor moved for summary judgment.”); Maxx Grp., LLC v. Uriah Prods., LLC, 26 No. 8:24-CV-01651-FWS-MAA, 2024 WL 5694630, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024); City of San 27 Jose v. San Jose Police Officers’ Ass’n, No. 5:12-CV-02904-LHK, 2013 WL 4806453, at *2 (N.D. 28 Cal. Sept. 9, 2013); 2 FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, RULES AND COMMENTARY § 41:10 1 (observing that the “prevailing answer” to the question “[i]f one defendant has answered or moved 2 for summary judgment but another defendant has not, can the plaintiff still dismiss by notice with 3 respect to the defendant that has not answered or moved for summary judgment” is “yes”). 4 The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate Defendants Invigorate 5 Healthcare, Inc.; Invigorate Healthcare, LLC; Invigorate Healthcare Management, LLC; Monte 6 Vista Care Holdings, LLC; Lamar Holdings, LLC; and Rodney Zwahlen. See Concha v. London, 7 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (The notice of voluntary dismissal “automatically terminates 8 the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.”). 9 This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiff’s case against all of the 10 remaining Defendants Curtis Bigelow, Richard A. Green, Razmik Zakarian, and James Christian 11 Hansen. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated: November 18, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

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