Opinion
20-cv-07016-PJH
09-20-2021
EMMANUEL OBLENA, Plaintiff, v. PEYVAND ZOHRABI, et al., Defendants.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Re: Dkt. No. 34
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge
Before the court is the motion of defendants Peyavnd Zohrabi, McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLP, and Affinia Default Services (collectively “defendants”) for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Emmanuel Oblena's (“plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Defendants' prior motion to dismiss had been granted on February 4, 2021, with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed the FAC on March 31, 2021 and defendants answered on April 12, 2021. Subsequent to the initial case management conference, defendants filed this motion for judgment on the pleadings on August 20, 2021. Plaintiff filed a combined opposition and a request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Defendants did not file a reply to the opposition or response to the request for voluntary dismissal.
Defendants' motion rests on several grounds, but in view of plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal and his acknowledgment that his amended complaint has failed to name all indispensable parties, the court focuses on the main issue-whether the complaint should be dismissed with or without prejudice. Given that the FAC doesn't even mention defendants Peyavnd Zohrabi or McCalla Raymer Leibert Pierce, LLP, the claims against them are dismissed with prejudice. However, given the absence of a reply from defendant or any response to plaintiff's request for a dismissal without prejudice, the claims against defendant Affinia Default Services, who is named in the FAC, are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.