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

E.D. California

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

DecidedJuly 8, 2026

Docket2:15-cv-02365

StatusUnknown

This text of Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al. (Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD F. TRINCHITELLA, Case No. 2:15-cv-2365-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AMERICAN REALTY PARTNERS, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff has filed an unopposed request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 105. Plaintiff seeks dismissal 20 “given the number and size of judgments against Defendants and Plaintiff’s advanced age, and in 21 order to conserve the resources of this Court and the parties.” Id. In light of plaintiff’s 22 representations and defendants’ lack of opposition, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be 23 granted and this action dismissed without prejudice. 24 Under Rule 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court 25 order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Unless otherwise 26 ordered by the court, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) “is without prejudice.” Id. Motions for 27 voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should be liberally granted if it will not result in legal 28 prejudice to the defendants. Stevedoring Serv. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l, 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1 1991). 2 Defendants have not opposed this request; thus, defendants have failed to show that they 3 | would suffer any prejudice if this case were to be dismissed. Accordingly, I recommend that 4 | plaintiff's motion be granted, and this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Genty v. 5 | Township of Gloucester, 736 F. Supp. 1322, 1326 (D. N.J. 1990) (“Where no parties object, the 6 | court should allow the dismissal.”). 7 It hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for dismissal, ECF No. 105, be 8 | GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 11 || service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 12 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 13 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 14 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 15 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 16 || Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 17 | 1991). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 8, 2026 Q_——_ 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON 59 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD F. TRINCHITELLA, Case No. 2:15-cv-2365-DAD-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 AMERICAN REALTY PARTNERS, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff has filed an unopposed request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice 19 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 105. Plaintiff seeks dismissal 20 “given the number and size of judgments against Defendants and Plaintiff’s advanced age, and in 21 order to conserve the resources of this Court and the parties.” Id. In light of plaintiff’s 22 representations and defendants’ lack of opposition, I recommend that plaintiff’s motion be 23 granted and this action dismissed without prejudice. 24 Under Rule 41(a)(2), “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court 25 order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Unless otherwise 26 ordered by the court, dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) “is without prejudice.” Id. Motions for 27 voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should be liberally granted if it will not result in legal 28 prejudice to the defendants. Stevedoring Serv. of Am. v. Armilla Int’l, 889 F.2d 919, 921 (9th Cir. 1 1991). 2 Defendants have not opposed this request; thus, defendants have failed to show that they 3 | would suffer any prejudice if this case were to be dismissed. Accordingly, I recommend that 4 | plaintiff's motion be granted, and this action be dismissed without prejudice. See Genty v. 5 | Township of Gloucester, 736 F. Supp. 1322, 1326 (D. N.J. 1990) (“Where no parties object, the 6 | court should allow the dismissal.”). 7 It hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff's motion for dismissal, ECF No. 105, be 8 | GRANTED and this action be DISMISSED without prejudice. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days of 11 || service of these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the 12 | court and serve a copy on all parties. Any such document should be captioned “Objections to 13 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations,” and any response shall be served and filed 14 | within fourteen days of service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file 15 | objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See 16 || Turner vy. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 17 | 1991). 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ July 8, 2026 Q_——_ 21 JEREMY D. PETERSON 59 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ronald F. Trinchitella v. American Realty Partners, LLC, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ronald-f-trinchitella-v-american-realty-partners-llc-et-al-caed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack