Meagher v. United States of America

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JENNA MEAGHER and ROBIN No. 1:20-cv-00035-NONE-SKO SATTERLEE, Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO v. TERMINATE DEFENDANT ALBERT 14 NEWMAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and ALBERT NEWMAN, (Doc. 10) 16 Defendants.

19 On September 4, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Voluntary Dismissal of Defendants Albert Newman and Does 1 through 251, on grounds that Defendant United States of America is the only proper defendant in the action, which is brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. (See Doc. 10.)

22 In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides as follows: 23 [A] 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 25 appeared.

26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or 1 Plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal is erroneously docketed as a motion to dismiss.

1 all of [their] claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “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).

4 Plaintiffs filed their notice of voluntary dismissal before Defendant Albert Newman served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.2 As such, Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed Defendant Albert Newman and this case has automatically terminated as to that defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to TERMINATE Defendant Albert Newman.

9 This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiffs’ case against the remaining defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: September 8, 2020 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28 2 The complaint’s caption does not name any Doe Defendants. (See Doc. 1 at 1.)