IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 3, 2013
TIFFANY SODANO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK F.A.; ET AL. DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On November 16, 2012, the undersigned ordered counsel for defendants to prepare a notice of dismissal of this action without prejudice for both plaintiffs to sign, and to file the dismissal documents within 14 days.*fn1 (Order, Dkt. No. 31.)
On December 31, 2012, counsel for defendants filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without prejudice, signed by both plaintiffs. (Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Dkt. No. 34.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) provides that "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. . . ." Dismissal under this rule requires no action on the part of the court and divests the court of jurisdiction once the notice of voluntary dismissal is filed. See, e.g., United States v. Real Property Located at 475 Martin Lane, Beverly Hills, CA, 545 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, because no defendant has yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment in this case, the voluntary dismissal is governed by Federal Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and the dismissal was effective upon filing and does not require a court order approving it. For clarity, however, the docket should reflect that this case has been dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all future dates.
IT IS SO ORDERED.