Jerrad Dupree Allen v. Cortez Summit, et al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: October 15, 2025
• Docket: 1:23-cv-01549
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 JERRAD DUPREE ALLEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-01549-SAB

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO NOTIFY COURT OF WHETHER THEY 11 v. CONSENT TO DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION OR INTEND TO PROCEED WITH 12 CORTEZ SUMMIT, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT

13 Defendants. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR A COURT ORDER REQUIRING COUNSEL 14 FOR DEFENDANT TO PARTICIPATE IN A TELECONFERENCE 15 OCTOBER 22, 2025 DEADLINE 16 (ECF No. 39) 17 18 Plaintiff Jerrad Dupree Allen, who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced 19 this action on November 2, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) As relevant here, in December 2024, Defendants 20 answered the operative complaint. (ECF No. 27.) Following the close of discovery, Defendants 21 moved for summary judgment on September 16, 2025, which remains pending. (ECF No. 37.) On 22 the date Plaintiff’s opposition was due, Plaintiff filed a one-page motion for leave to amend. (ECF 23 No. 39.) 24 Now before the Court, on October 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal 25 seeking dismissal of this action without prejudice as well as a court-order requiring counsel for 26 Defendants to attend a teleconference with Plaintiff to discuss the findings that led to “this 27 conclusion/resolution.” (ECF No. 40.) “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his ] | action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’” 2 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999), 3 | quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). “[A] dismissal under Rule 4 | 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had 5 | been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything 6 | about it.” Id. at 1078; see also Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). 7 Here, Defendants have filed an answer and a motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 8 | 27, 37.) Therefore, Plaintiff may not at this juncture unilaterally dismiss this action without 9 | prejudice. That said, the Court will direct Defendants to file a notice of whether they consent to 10 | Plaintiff's request for a dismissal without prejudice, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), or whether they 11 | intend to proceed with summary judgment. 12 Regarding Plaintiff's request for a court order directing counsel for Defendants to 13 | participate in a teleconference to discuss the “resolution,”! the Court will deny the request. 14 | Plaintiff has offered no legal basis for the request, and the Court is unaware of any authority that 15 | would allow for such a court order. 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 17 1. Defendants shall have through October 22, 2025, to file a notice of whether they 18 consent to Plaintiff's request for a dismissal without prejudice or whether they 19 intend to proceed with summary judgment; and 20 2. Plaintiff's request for a court order directing counsel for Defendants to participate 21 in a teleconference is DENIED. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 Se 24 | Dated: _ October 15, 2025 _ ofS STANLEY A. BOONE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28 | | The Court assumes Plaintiff means the argument and evidence provided in the motion for summary judgment.