Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Burch v. Hartley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 14, 2009

CHRISTOPHER H. BURCH, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES A. HARTLEY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER ADDRESSING NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL (Doc. 52) ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE OPPOSITION, IF ANY, WITHIN TWENTY- ONE DAYS

This is a civil rights suit filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 8, 2009, Plaintiff Christopher H. Burch filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, and noted that Defendants have not filed a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because Defendants have filed an answer, Plaintiff does not have the absolute right to dismiss the action, Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001), and a court order is required absent the submission of a stipulation, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

If Defendants object to the dismissal of this action without prejudice, they have twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order within which to file an opposition. Local Rule 78-230(l). Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due seven (7) days thereafter. Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20091214

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.