ORDER CLOSING CASE (Doc. No. 17)
On September 28, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice of this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1).
Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:
(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.
In Wilson v. City of San Jose, the Ninth Circuit explained:
Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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.
Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997).
No answers to Plaintiffs' complaint and no motions for summary judgment have been filed in this case, and it appears that no such answers or summary judgment motions have been served. Because Plaintiffs have exercised their right to voluntarily dismiss the complaint under Rule 41(a)(1) without prejudice, this case has terminated. See Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of Plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) requested dismissal without prejudice.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...