Opinion
CASE NO. 1:16-CV-1176 AWI MJS
10-27-2016
ROBERT McCARTHY, Plaintiff v. NAVJEET S. CHAHAL, et al., Defendants
ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
(Doc. No. 5)
On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice. See Doc. No. 5.
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.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. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995)
Here, no answers to Plaintiff's complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been filed in this case, and it appears that no such documents have been served. Because Plaintiff has exercised his right to voluntarily dismiss his complaint with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated automatically. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
The Court notes that the notice is somewhat ambiguous because it cites Rule 41(a)(1) and 41(a)(2). Citation to and reliance on Rule 41(a)(2) is improper. The text of Rule 41(a)(2) begins by stating, "Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1) . . . ." Because the conditions necessary for an automatic dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) are present in this case, Rule 41(a)(2) has no application. --------
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: October 27, 2016
/s/_________
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE