Scanlon v. Curtis International, Ltd.

Opinion

ROMAN SCANLON, No. 1:19-cv-00937-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFF’S UNJUST CURTIS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., ENRICHMENT CLAIM (FIFTH CLAIM FOR TECHNICOLOR SA, RELIEF) Defendants.

On October 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Dismissal of Count V (Unjust Enrichment) Without Prejudice.” (Doc. 20.) In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides as follows: “[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing. . . (ii) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims” through a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Such stipulation may be made orally in open court. See Carter v. Beverly Hills Savings & Loan Association, 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). Because Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed his unjust enrichment claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 66 (Fifth Claim for Relief) (Doc. 1-4 ¶¶ 107–115), without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and neither Defendant has served an answer or a motion for summary judgment, that claim has been DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendants. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: October 23, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE