ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 31, 2012 ORDER AND JUDGMENT and AMENDED ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' RULE 12(b)(6) AND RULE 11 MOTIONS (Doc. Nos. 2, 5, 8, 9)
This case was filed by Plaintiffs on July 26, 2012. On August 10, 2012, Defendants filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss this case. On September 7, 2012, Defendants filed a Rule 11 motion for sanctions.
On October 24, 2012, the Court vacated the October 29, 2012 hearing date on Defendants motions. On October 29, 2012, the Court signed an order that granted both motions and closed the case. See Doc. No. 8. That order was docketed on October 31, 2012. See id.
On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiffs submitted a Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal. See Doc. No. 7. The dismissal was docketed on October 29, 2012, after the Court signed the order granting Defendants' motion, but before that order was docketed. The dismissal was docketed with an October 26, 2012, filing date. See id. Because Plaintiffs' filed their Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal prior to the Court's ruling on Defendants' motion, it is necessary for the Court to vacate its prior order and issue this amended order.
I. Rule 12(b)(6) Motion To Dismiss
A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal, if filed prior to the service of an answer or motion for summary judgment, is effective automatically upon filing and does not require a court order.
See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 587-88 (7th Cir. 2011); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., LLC v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001). "Once the notice of dismissal has been filed, the district court loses jurisdiction over the dismissed claims and may not address the merits of such claims or issue further orders pertaining to them." United States v. 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008); Duke Energy, 267 F.3d at 1049.
Here, Plaintiffs' Rule 41(a)(1) notice was filed prior to the filing of the Court's order on Defendants' motion. Therefore the notice deprives this Court of jurisdiction to address the merits of Defendants Rule 12(b)(6) motion or to address Plaintiffs' claims. See 475 Martin Lane, 545 F.3d at 1145; Duke Energy, 267 F.3d at 1049. Accordingly, Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion is denied as moot.
Defendants argue that this case is frivolous and that sanctions are appropriate. Defendants argue that the Complaint relies on allegations that are false, as shown by judicially noticed documents. Further, Plaintiffs' claims are barred by res judicata. Plaintiffs cannot point to any legitimate basis for challenging the foreclosure sale or challenging Wells Fargo's standing to foreclose. If the motion is unopposed, an award of $550 in attorney's fees should be awarded.
Plaintiffs have filed no opposition or response of any kind to the Rule 11 motion. Legal Standard Rule 11 provides in pertinent part as follows:
(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court a pleading or other paper -- whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it -- an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless ...