Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al.

C.D. California

Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al.

DecidedJuly 7, 2026

Docket8:26-cv-00706

StatusUnknown

This text of Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al. (Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al., (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:26-cv-00706-FWS-KES Date: July 7, 2026 Title: Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rolls Royce Paschal N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE [16]

The court has received Plaintiffs’ Notice of Dismissal. (Dkt. 16.) The court observes that a Notice to Filer of Deficiencies was issued because a motion to dismiss was previously filed in this case. (Dkt. 17.) However, the court further observes that Defendants have not filed or “serve[d] either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); (see generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court finds the Notice of Dismissal effective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits dismissal of an action “without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); see Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding a motion to dismiss does not constitute an “answer” for purposes of Rule 41(a)(1)); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even if supported by extraneous materials, is not regarded as a “motion for summary judgment” under Rule 41(a)(1) until the district court “acts to convert the motion, preferably by an explicit ruling”); see also Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Courts applying Rule 41(a) have given it a literal interpretation.”) (collecting cases); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.”) (citation omitted); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice itself closes the file. There is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play.”) (cleaned up); cf. Am. Soccer Co. v. Score ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 8:26-cv-00706-FWS-KES Date: July 7, 2026 Title: Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al. First Enterprises, a Div. of Kevlar Indus., 187 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Courts have refused to weigh the amount of effort expended by the defendant or the district court, instead holding that ‘rule 41(a)(1) means what it says.’”) (collecting cases). This action is therefore DISMISSED.

____________________________________________________________________________

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

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 8:26-cv-00706-FWS-KES Date: July 7, 2026 Title: Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al.

Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rolls Royce Paschal N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE [16]

The court has received Plaintiffs’ Notice of Dismissal. (Dkt. 16.) The court observes that a Notice to Filer of Deficiencies was issued because a motion to dismiss was previously filed in this case. (Dkt. 17.) However, the court further observes that Defendants have not filed or “serve[d] either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); (see generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court finds the Notice of Dismissal effective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits dismissal of an action “without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); see Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding a motion to dismiss does not constitute an “answer” for purposes of Rule 41(a)(1)); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even if supported by extraneous materials, is not regarded as a “motion for summary judgment” under Rule 41(a)(1) until the district court “acts to convert the motion, preferably by an explicit ruling”); see also Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Courts applying Rule 41(a) have given it a literal interpretation.”) (collecting cases); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.”) (citation omitted); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice itself closes the file. There is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play.”) (cleaned up); cf. Am. Soccer Co. v. Score ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No. 8:26-cv-00706-FWS-KES Date: July 7, 2026 Title: Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al. First Enterprises, a Div. of Kevlar Indus., 187 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Courts have refused to weigh the amount of effort expended by the defendant or the district court, instead holding that ‘rule 41(a)(1) means what it says.’”) (collecting cases). This action is therefore DISMISSED.

____________________________________________________________________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lokanatha Reddy Siddareddygari et al. v. Carrie M. Selby et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lokanatha-reddy-siddareddygari-et-al-v-carrie-m-selby-et-al-cacd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack