Rang Dong Joint Stock Co. v. J.F. Hillebrand USA, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 | Rang Dong Joint Stock Company, No. 2:18-cv-03195-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 J.F. Hillebrand USA, Inc., et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Rang Dong Joint Stock Company has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under 18 | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). See ECF No. 68. Despite arguing in a recent filing 19 | that “the courts of Germany have exclusive jurisdiction over [Rang Dong’s] claims,” Suppl. Memo. 20 | at 3, ECF No. 67, defendant J.F. Hillebrand opposes dismissal, see ECF No. 69. 21 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an 22 | action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either 23 | an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(A)(). Here, defendants 24 | have not filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court is unpersuaded by 25 | Hillebrand’s argument that the court’s orders on defendants’ motions to dismiss converted those 26 | motions into motions for summary judgment. See Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1142-45 27 | (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring district court to “take some affirmative action” to convert Rule 12(b)(6) 28 | motion to motion for summary judgment before that motion could preclude Rule 41(a)(1) notice of

1 voluntary dismissal from taking effect); see also Order at 11, ECF No. 62 (“The court grants Blue 2 Eagle’s motion to dismiss.”). This case is dismissed. See Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. 3 v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the 4 district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such 5 claims or issue further orders pertaining to them.” (citation omitted)); Commercial Space Mgmt. 6 Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[I]t is beyond debate that a dismissal 7 under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though 8 no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction 9 to do anything about it.”). 11 DATED: August 23, 2022.