From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCarthy v. Choi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2015
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1161 AWI GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1161 AWI GSA

09-02-2015

ROBERT MCCARTHY, Plaintiff v. KYUNG-SUN CHOI, SUNGHEE CHOI, both d/b/a Americas Best Value Inn, and DOES 1 through 10 inclusive, Defendants


ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 6)

On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. See Doc. No. 8.

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.
In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:
Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant's service of an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. . . . The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the
action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice. Concha, 62 F.2d at 1506.

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).

No answers to Plaintiff's complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been filed in this case and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of Plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 2, 2015

/s/_________

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

McCarthy v. Choi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 2, 2015
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1161 AWI GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)
Case details for

McCarthy v. Choi

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MCCARTHY, Plaintiff v. KYUNG-SUN CHOI, SUNGHEE CHOI, both d/b/a…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 2, 2015

Citations

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1161 AWI GSA (E.D. Cal. Sep. 2, 2015)