Roth v. PTGMB LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 13, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00231·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELLI ROTH, Case No. 1:20-cv-00231-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE v. DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) PTGMB LLC, OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendant. (ECF No. 44.)

On February 12, 2020, Kelli Roth (“Plaintiff”) filed this action individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. (ECF No. 1.) On November 12, 2020, a stipulation was filed dismissing this action with prejudice as to Plaintiff Kelli Roth, and with each party to bear its own costs and fees. (ECF No. 44.) The stipulation specifies that any claims of putative class members are dismissed without prejudice. (Id.) In light of the stipulation of the parties, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice as to Plaintiff Kelli Roth, without prejudice as to putative class members, and without an award of costs or attorneys’ fees. / / / / / / / / / Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee Dated: _ November 13, 2020 "

‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

Roth v. PTGMB LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Roth v. PTGMB LLC (Roth v. PTGMB LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. City of San Jose
111 F.3d 688 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)