Trujillo v. Conrad

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: May 1, 2020
• Docket: 1:19-cv-01627
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOSE TRUJILLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-01627-AWI-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE BBD LOS 13 v. BANOS MANAGEMENT LLC AND BLACK BEAR DINER LOS BANOS, L.P. 14 ETHAN CONRAD, et al., AS A PARTY IN THIS ACTION

15 Defendants. (ECF No. 26)

17 Plaintiff Jose Trujillo filed this action against Defendants Ethan Conrad; BBD Los Banos 18 Management LLC and Black Bear Diner Los Banos, L.P.; J.C. Penney Inc.; Jose Ramirez and 19 Ramirez-Vazquez Inc.; and Italian Café Gourmet Food Service Inc. on November 13, 2019. 20 (ECF No. 1.) On December 27, 2019, Defendants BBD Los Banos Management LLC and Black 21 Bear Diner Los Banos, L.P. filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) On January 9, 22 2020, Defendant J.C. Penney Company, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 13.) 23 On January 27, 2020, Defendant Ethan Conrad filed an answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 15.) 24 Defendant Italian Café Gourmet Food Service, Inc. filed an answer to the complaint and a cross 25 claim for indemnification against Cross-defendant Ethan Conrad on February 25, 2020. (ECF 26 Nos. 19, 20.) Defendant Ethan Conrad filed an answer to the cross claim on March 17, 2020. 27 (ECF No. 23.) On April 8, 2020, Defendant Jose Ramirez and Ramirez-Vazquez, Inc. filed an WAS 1.49 UVOVEVET OPA RUUD Ue OY ee

1 | answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 25.) On April 30, 2020, a stipulation of dismissal as to 2 | Defendants BBD Los Banos Management LLC and Black Bear Diner Los Banos, L.P. was filed. 3 | (ECF No. 26.) 4 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)@) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘a plaintiff has an 5 | absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a 6 | motion for summary judgment.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 7 | F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 8 | 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9 | allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. 10 | Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). ll As relevant here, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) provides that a 12 | “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed 13 | by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi). Here, the stipulation is 14 | signed by all parties who have appeared in this action. 15 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendants BBD Los 16 | Banos Management LLC and Black Bear Diner Los Banos, L.P. as a defendant in this action. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF. ee 19 | Dated: _April 30, 2020_ Oe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28