Johnson v. Rush Enterprises, Inc.

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM LEE JOHNSON, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-00105-LJO-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISREGARDING NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT 13 v. COBHAM PLC JOAN JOHNSON, et al., (ECF No. 47) 15 Defendants. FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 17 William Lee Johnson, by and through his guardian ad litem, and Joan Johnson (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action on January 14, 2019, against Rush Enterprises, Inc; Carleton Technologies, Inc.; Cobham PLC; and Pape Trucks, Inc. On February 14, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding Natural Gas Fuel Systems as a defendant. On April 19, 2019, Defendant Carleton Technologies filed an answer and cross-claim against Natural Gas Fuel Systems Inc. and Pape Trucks, Inc. On April 23, 2019, Defendant Natural Gas Fuel Systems Inc. filed an answer and cross-claim against Carlton Technologies, Inc. 24 Carleton Technologies filed an answer to the cross-claim on May 14, 2019 and Natural Gas Fuel System filed an answer to the cross-claim on May 16, 2019. On May 20, 2019, Defendant Pape Trucks, Inc. filed an answer and a cross-claim against Carleton Technologies, Inc. and Natural Gas Fuel Systems, Inc. On June 10, 2019, Defendant Carleton Technologies, Inc. and Natural Gas Fuel System filed an answer to Pape Trucks, Inc. cross-claim.

1 On August 14, 2019, a notice of voluntary dismissal of Cobham PLC was filed. The | notice states that Plaintiffs are voluntarily dismissing all their claims against Defendant Cobham | PLC by stipulation and the notice is signed by counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for Cobham | PLC, Natural Gas Systems and Pape Trucks.

5 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 41(a) allows a party to dismiss some or all of the | defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, | 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without | a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. | R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi).

10 Here, while it appears that Cobham PLC and Carleton Technologies are represented by | the same counsel, the stipulation itself does not indicate that Carleton Technologies has stipulated | to the dismissal of Cobham PLC from Plaintiffs’ complaint in this action. Therefore, the Court | finds that the dismissal is defective because it is not signed by Carleton Technologies.

14 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the notice of voluntary dismiss is | DISREGARDED and the parties shall file a request for dismissal that complies with Rule 41 | within fourteen (14) days from the date of entry of this order.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee | Dated: _ August 15, 2019 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE