Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno

E.D. California

Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno

DecidedOctober 12, 2021

Docket1:21-cv-01134

StatusUnknown

This text of Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno (Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno) 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

Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 1: 21-cv-01134-DAD-SAB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE DAVID 13 v. POMAVILLE AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (ECF No. 14) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On October 4, 2021, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation whereby the parties agreed 18 in part to dismiss Defendant David Pomaville, and that the statute of limitations for the claims 19 against such Defendant to be tolled until the close of fact discovery. (ECF No. 13.) On October 20 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant David Pomaville pursuant to Federal 21 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), without prejudice. (ECF No. 14.) Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules 22 of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action through a 23 Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 24 Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff may dismiss either some 25 or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); but see 26 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth 27 Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action.”). “Filing a notice of voluntary 1 | dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the 2 | subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506. 3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant David 4 | Pomaville as a defendant in this action. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _October 12, 2021 _ 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 DORIS ANDERSON, et al., Case No. 1: 21-cv-01134-DAD-SAB

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE DAVID 13 v. POMAVILLE AS A DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION 14 COUNTY OF FRESNO, et al., (ECF No. 14) 15 Defendants.

16 17 On October 4, 2021, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation whereby the parties agreed 18 in part to dismiss Defendant David Pomaville, and that the statute of limitations for the claims 19 against such Defendant to be tolled until the close of fact discovery. (ECF No. 13.) On October 20 11, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant David Pomaville pursuant to Federal 21 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), without prejudice. (ECF No. 14.) Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules 22 of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action through a 23 Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 24 Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff may dismiss either some 25 or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); but see 26 Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth 27 Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action.”). “Filing a notice of voluntary 1 | dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the 2 | subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506. 3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant David 4 | Pomaville as a defendant in this action. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 | Dated: _October 12, 2021 _ 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)

Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doris-anderson-v-county-of-fresno-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack