Brooke v. Stan Express LP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 1:21-cv-000957-NONE-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO RANDOMLY ASSIGN DISTRICT v. JUDGE FOR PURPOSES OF CLOSING

CASE AND TO ADJUST DOCKET TO

STAN EXPRESS LP, REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Defendant. (ECF No. 4)

This action was filed on June 16, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On July 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ‘a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. In this action, no defendant has filed an answer or other responsive pleading. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le

Dated: _July 9, 2021 __ ef

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE