Langworthy v. Lev

W.D. Washington

Langworthy v. Lev

DecidedJune 6, 2024

Docket2:21-cv-01149

StatusUnknown

This text of Langworthy v. Lev (Langworthy v. Lev) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Langworthy v. Lev, (W.D. Wash. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 GENEVA LANGWORTHY, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01149-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO REOPEN 13 DEBRA LEV et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Geneva Langworthy’s Motion to 17 Re-Open and For Service By the US Marshall. Dkt. No. 48. On March 21, 2022, Ms. Langworthy 18 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, Dkt. No. 47, and the Court dismissed this action without 19 prejudice the same day pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), see March 21, 20 2022 Docket Entry. More than two years later, Ms. Langworthy now seeks to reopen and amend 21 her complaint, and also requests “that a judge from the District of Idaho or from the District of 22 Montana be brought in to hear her case.” Dkt. No. 48 at 4–5. 23 A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his or her action without a court order by filing “a notice 24 of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). “Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses 2 jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue 3 further orders pertaining to them.” Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 4 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n. 4, 1079

5 (9th Cir. 1999)); accord United States v. Real Prop. Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, 6 CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 Accordingly, because Ms. Langworthy voluntarily dismissed her complaint without 8 prejudice, the Court denies her request to reopen this case. Dkt. No. 48; see, e.g., Williams v. Kings 9 Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Off., No. 1:18-CV-00416-ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 4086445, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 10 June 20, 2023). 11 Dated this 6th day of June, 2024. 12 A 13 Lauren King United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 GENEVA LANGWORTHY, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01149-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 12 v. MOTION TO REOPEN 13 DEBRA LEV et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Geneva Langworthy’s Motion to 17 Re-Open and For Service By the US Marshall. Dkt. No. 48. On March 21, 2022, Ms. Langworthy 18 filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, Dkt. No. 47, and the Court dismissed this action without 19 prejudice the same day pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), see March 21, 20 2022 Docket Entry. More than two years later, Ms. Langworthy now seeks to reopen and amend 21 her complaint, and also requests “that a judge from the District of Idaho or from the District of 22 Montana be brought in to hear her case.” Dkt. No. 48 at 4–5. 23 A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss his or her action without a court order by filing “a notice 24 of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). “Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses 2 jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue 3 further orders pertaining to them.” Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 4 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n. 4, 1079

5 (9th Cir. 1999)); accord United States v. Real Prop. Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, 6 CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). 7 Accordingly, because Ms. Langworthy voluntarily dismissed her complaint without 8 prejudice, the Court denies her request to reopen this case. Dkt. No. 48; see, e.g., Williams v. Kings 9 Cnty. Dist. Attorney’s Off., No. 1:18-CV-00416-ADA-SKO, 2023 WL 4086445, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 10 June 20, 2023). 11 Dated this 6th day of June, 2024. 12 A 13 Lauren King United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Langworthy v. Lev, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langworthy-v-lev-wawd-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack