Glen D. Arnett, Jr. v. Fredrico Moreno, et al.

W.D. Oklahoma

Glen D. Arnett, Jr. v. Fredrico Moreno, et al.

DecidedOctober 21, 2025

Docket5:25-cv-00380

StatusUnknown

This text of Glen D. Arnett, Jr. v. Fredrico Moreno, et al. (Glen D. Arnett, Jr. v. Fredrico Moreno, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glen D. Arnett, Jr. v. Fredrico Moreno, et al., (W.D. Okla. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GLEN D. ARNETT, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-380-SLP ) FREDRICO MORENO, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Before the Court is Plaintiff Glen D. Arnett, Jr.’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [Doc. No. 28]. Plaintiff seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order . . . before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Here, no defendants filed an answer or summary judgment motion. See De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that because the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss rather than an answer or motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff “could have dismissed the case unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing is a self-executing termination of this action and no further action by the Court is required.1 See id. (“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”); id. (“a voluntary

1 Plaintiff’s Notice also requests “permission to remand this case” to the District Court of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. See [Doc. No. 28]. Plaintiff elected to commence this action before this Court. See [Doc. No. 1]. No proceedings in this action have taken place in the District Court of Cleveland County. This Court does not have the ability to transfer this matter to the requested state court forum. dismissal is self-executing, i.e., it is effective at the moment the notice is filed with the clerk and no judicial approval is required” (quoting Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003))). IT IS SO ORDERED this 21* day of October, 2025. LAZ SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

GLEN D. ARNETT, JR., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. CIV-25-380-SLP ) FREDRICO MORENO, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

O R D E R

Before the Court is Plaintiff Glen D. Arnett, Jr.’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal [Doc. No. 28]. Plaintiff seeks dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to “dismiss an action without a court order . . . before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment[.]” Here, no defendants filed an answer or summary judgment motion. See De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting that because the defendant had filed a motion to dismiss rather than an answer or motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff “could have dismissed the case unilaterally under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s filing is a self-executing termination of this action and no further action by the Court is required.1 See id. (“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is self-executing and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”); id. (“a voluntary

1 Plaintiff’s Notice also requests “permission to remand this case” to the District Court of Cleveland County, State of Oklahoma. See [Doc. No. 28]. Plaintiff elected to commence this action before this Court. See [Doc. No. 1]. No proceedings in this action have taken place in the District Court of Cleveland County. This Court does not have the ability to transfer this matter to the requested state court forum. dismissal is self-executing, i.e., it is effective at the moment the notice is filed with the clerk and no judicial approval is required” (quoting Janssen v. Harris, 321 F.3d 998, 1000 (10th Cir. 2003))). IT IS SO ORDERED this 21* day of October, 2025. LAZ SCOTT L. PALK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glen D. Arnett, Jr. v. Fredrico Moreno, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glen-d-arnett-jr-v-fredrico-moreno-et-al-okwd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack