Pennel v. American Addiction Centers, Inc.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 10, 2021
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00284
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 CONNOR W. OLSON (SB #291493) connor@cwo-law.com 2 Law Offices of Connor W. Olson 520 Capitol Mall, Suite 150 3 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 905-7276 4 Facsimile: (888) 759-7383

5 Attorney for Plaintiff MELISSA PENNEL 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 MELISSA PENNEL, CASE NO.: 2:20-CV-00284-JAM-KJN 10 Plaintiff, ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL UNDER 11 v. RULE 41 12 AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., a ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO Nevada Corporation, AAC HOLDINGS, INC., a CLOSE FILE 13 Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1 through 24, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 16 On December 10, 2021, Plaintiff Melissa Pennel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of 17 this case. (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff has a right to voluntarily dismiss this case under Rule 41 of the 18 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained: 19 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily 20 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, 21 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff 22 may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of 23 dismissal prior to the defendant’s service of an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court 24 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) 25 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 26 automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the 27 subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's 28 right to commence another action for the same cause against the 1 sHaommee d, e8fe3n4d aFn.2tsd. I9d3. 0(c, i9ti3n4g- 3M5c K(9etnhz iCei rv.. D19a8v7e)n)p. oSrut-cHha rar ids iFsmuniessraall 2 leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id 3 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 4 No defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment in this case. Therefore 5 Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective, and this case shall be closed. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal is effective as of the date it was filed; 8 2. This case is DISMISSED in its entirety without prejudice; 9 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close the file in this case and adjust the docket 10 to reflect voluntarily dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DATED: December 10, 2021 /s/ John A. Mendez 14 THE HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28