Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al.

E.D. California

Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 8, 2026·No. 2:15-cv-02365·Unknown

Opinion

RONALD F. TRINCHITELLA, Case No. 2:15-cv-2365-DAD-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed an unopposed request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 105. Plaintiff seeks dismissal “given the number and size of judgments against Defendants and Plaintiff’s advanced age, and in order to conserve the resources of this Court and the parties.” Id. In light of plaintiff’s representations and defendants’ lack of opposition, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be granted and this action dismissed without prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) “is without prejudice.” Id. Motions for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should be liberally granted if it will not result in legal prejudice to the defendants. Stevedoring Serv. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l, 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1991). Defendants have not opposed this request; thus, defendants have failed to show that they would suffer any prejudice if this case were to be dismissed. Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff's motion be granted, and this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Genty v. Township of Gloucester, 736 F. Supp. 1322, 1326 (D. N.J. 1990) (“Where no parties object, the court should allow the dismissal.”). It hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for dismissal, ECF No. 105, be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: _ July 8, 2026 Q_——_ JEREMY D. PETERSON 59 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

RONALD F. TRINCHITELLA, Case No. 2:15-cv-2365-DAD-JDP (PS) Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS et al., Defendants.

Plaintiff has filed an unopposed request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 105. Plaintiff seeks dismissal “given the number and size of judgments against Defendants and Plaintiff’s advanced age, and in order to conserve the resources of this Court and the parties.” Id. In light of plaintiff’s representations and defendants’ lack of opposition, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be granted and this action dismissed without prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Unless otherwise ordered by the court, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) “is without prejudice.” Id. Motions for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should be liberally granted if it will not result in legal prejudice to the defendants. Stevedoring Serv. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l, 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1991). Defendants have not opposed this request; thus, defendants have failed to show that they would suffer any prejudice if this case were to be dismissed. Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff's motion be granted, and this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Genty v. Township of Gloucester, 736 F. Supp. 1322, 1326 (D. N.J. 1990) (“Where no parties object, the court should allow the dismissal.”). It hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for dismissal, ECF No. 105, be GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: _ July 8, 2026 Q_——_ JEREMY D. PETERSON 59 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al., (E.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al. (Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related