IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 13, 2008
CONNIE ARNOLD, PLAINTIFF,
LA QUINTA CORPORATION, IC KANG CORPORATION, LQ MANAGEMENT LLC, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 35, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge
ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANTS LA QUINTA CORPORATION AND LQ MANAGEMENT LLC ONLY DUE TO PLAINTIFF'S VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
(Document Nos. 11 & 12)
On November 12, 2008, Plaintiff filed her notice of voluntary dismissal as to Defendants La Quinta Corporation and LQ Management LLC only, without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained that, under Rule 41(a):
. . . 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. Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman American Express, 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987)). A plaintiff may dismiss his action so long as the plaintiff files a notice of dismissal prior to the defendant's service of an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal is effective on filing and no court order is required. Id. The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice. Id.; Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993). The filing of 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.2d at 1506. Unless otherwise stated, the dismissal is ordinarily without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to commence another action for the same cause against the same defendants. Id. (citing McKenzie v. Davenport-Harris Funeral Home, 834 F.2d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 1987)). Such a dismissal leaves the parties as though no action had been brought. Id.
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
No answer to Plaintiff's complaint and no motion for summary judgment has been filed in this case and it appears that no such answer or summary judgment motion has been served.
Because Plaintiff has exercised her right to voluntarily dismiss her complaint without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this case has terminated as explained by Wilson v. City of San Jose.
111 F.3d at 692.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants La Quinta Corporation and LQ Management LLC only are dismissed from this case in light of Plaintiffs's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.