CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-03787-KS Date: February 13, 2025 Title Ramy Rahimian v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al.

Present: The Honorable: Karen L. Stevenson, Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Gay Roberson N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE [DKT. NO. 35]

Background On January 27, 2025, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank N.A. filed a “Motion to Dismiss Entire Action with Prejudice Pursuant to FRCP 41(b)” (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 35.) The Motion was brought based upon Plaintiff’s failure to file a first amended complaint by the Court-ordered deadline. (Id. at 4.) Defendant argues in the Motion that Plaintiff “has failed to diligently prosecute his case. Accordingly, the Court should dismiss this case, with prejudice.” (Id.)

The Court is now in receipt of Plaintiff’s “Statement of Non-opposition” to the Motion (“Non-opposition”), filed on February 12, 2025. (Dkt. No. 36.) The Non-opposition states that Plaintiff “submits his Statement of Non-Opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,” but contains no legal argument or discussion. (Id.)

Legal Standard

“Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has ‘an absolute right’ to voluntarily dismiss an action ‘prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’” Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC,

, 1279 n.4 (9th Cir. 2023) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose,

(9th Cir. 1997)). Further, a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) “is effective on filing and no court order is required.” Wilson,

.

\\ CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 24-03787-KS Date: February 13, 2025 Title Ramy Rahimian v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Analysis

As no answer or Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in this case, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Non-opposition to dismissal as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). Kamal,

n.4; Wilson,

; see also Myers v. Calandrino, No. CV 16-2239-JGB (JEM),

, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2017) (construing the plaintiff’s non-opposition to a motion to dismiss a defendant as a voluntary dismissal of that defendant).

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion (dkt. no. 35) is GRANTED and this action is deemed DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as of February 12, 2025, the date that Plaintiff filed the Non-opposition/notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil procedure 41(a)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: Initials of Preparer gr