Pennel v. American Addiction Centers, Inc.

Opinion

CONNOR W. OLSON (SB #291493) connor@cwo-law.com Law Offices of Connor W. Olson 520 Capitol Mall, Suite 150 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 905-7276 Facsimile: (888) 759-7383

Attorney for Plaintiff MELISSA PENNEL

MELISSA PENNEL, CASE NO.: 2:20-CV-00284-JAM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER v. RULE 41 AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., a ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO Nevada Corporation, AAC HOLDINGS, INC., a CLOSE FILE Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 through 24, inclusive, Defendants. On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff Melissa Pennel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of this case. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff has a right to voluntarily dismiss this case under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained: Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609- 10 (9th Cir. 1993). 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. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for the same cause against the sHaommee d, e8fe3n4d aFn.2tsd. I9d3. 0(c, i9ti3n4g- 3M5c K(9etnhz iCei rv.. D19a8v7e)n)p. oSrut-cHha rar ids iFsmuniessraall leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). No defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this case. Therefore Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective, and this case shall be closed. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed; 2. This case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntarily dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: December 10, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE