1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 || JAMES DUFFY, individually and on behalf CASE NO. 19cv1094-LAB (AHG) 10 of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL; vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 DISMISS AS MOOT [Dkt. 18] 13 MAXWELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff James Duffy moves to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. 16 Although Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss, (Dkt. 18), they have not filed an answer 17 || or motion for summary judgment, and Plaintiff therefore retains the right to unilaterally 18 || dismiss the action. See Concha v. London,

(9th Cir. 1995) (“Even if the 19 || defendant has filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff may terminate his action voluntarily by 20 || filing a notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1).”). This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT 21 || PREJUDICE. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is DENIED AS MOOT. Dkt. 18. The hearing 22 || currently scheduled for April 13, 2020 is VACATED. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: February 4, 2020 (aud Af. (buy wy 25 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS 26 Chief United States District Judge 27 28