Doris Anderson v. County of Fresno

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

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