Vasquez v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WARDIA VASQUEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-01099-DAD-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 12 COURT TO TERMINATE MARC v. MIRAMONTEZ AS A DEFENDANT IN 13 THIS ACTION O’REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 5) 15 Defendants.

17 On September 10, 2021, the parties filed a stipulated notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) of Defendant Marc Miramontez. (ECF No. 5.) The dismissal of this Defendant is without prejudice and with each party to bear their own costs and fees. (Id.) The claims against Defendant O’Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC, are not subject to the stipulation and will remain active. (Id.) 22 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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 24 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action.”). “Filing a | notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the | defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506.

3 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Marc | Miramontez as a defendant in this action.

6 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _September 10, 2021 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE