United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2024

Orozco v. FCA US LLC

Orozco v. FCA US LLC
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided August 29, 2024
Orozco v. FCA US LLC

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ISIDRO OROZCO, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01674-SAB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL 13 v. (ECF No. 61) FCA US, LLC, FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

17 Plaintiffs filed this action on November 19, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) On February 24, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the complaint. (ECF No. 10.) On August 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 61.) The request was filed as a “motion to dismiss” and is signed only by Plaintiffs. (Id. at 2.)

22 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “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 25 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)).

27 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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)(ii). “As the express language of this 2 indicates, for a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) to be effective, all parties who have appeared must sign the stipulation.” Aswad ACA Receivables, L.L.C., No. | CIVF060835A WILJO, 2007 WL 427591, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2007) (emphasis added).

5 A party may also dismiss an action by filing a motion requesting the Court to dismiss the | action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).. A motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is | addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. | Inc., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982).

9 Plaintiffs’ request for dismissal is defective under Rule 41(a) because it is not a signed | stipulation by all parties who have appeared, and it is not a motion under Rule 41(a)(2). If | Plaintiffs wish to dismiss this action, they are required to comply with the procedures set forth in | Rule 41 by either filing a stipulation that complies with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Gi) or a motion under | Rule 41(a)(2) that complies with Local Rule 230.

14 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ request for dismissal is HEREBY DISREGARDED. Plaintiffs | shall file a request for dismissal of this action that complies with Rule 41 within fourteen (14) | days from the date of entry of this order.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le | Dated: _August 29, 2024 _ OO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.