Moland v. Bank of America, N.A.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 10, 2025·No. 1:25-cv-00380·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CARNESHIA MOLAND, Case No. 1:25-cv-00380-JLT-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST DOCKET v. TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) OF THE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendant. (ECF No. 18) Plaintiff commenced this action on April 1, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) On June 13, 2025, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 13.) On June 30, 2025, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation to allow Plaintiff to file a first amended complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a) no later than July 11, 2025. (ECF Nos. 16, 17.) On July 9, 2025, Plaintiff instead filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to Plaintiff individually and any unnamed member of the alleged class. (ECF No. 18.) Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘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.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Even if the defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff may terminate his action voluntarily by filing a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).”). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. Accordingly, as no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed, the notice of voluntary dismissal is effective under Rule 41(a){1). Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). It HEREBY ORDERED that all pending dates are vacated, and all pending matters are terminated. i IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le Dated: _July 10, 2025 _ Oe STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge

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

Moland v. Bank of America, N.A., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Moland v. Bank of America, N.A. (Moland v. Bank of America, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Daniel James Fowlie
24 F.3d 1070 (Ninth Circuit, 1994)
Concha v. London
62 F.3d 1493 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)