IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 7, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PETITIONER,
KELLY H. COOPER, RESPONDENT.
This action was referred to the undersigned under Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(9), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On October 22, 2012, the undersigned issued an order directing respondent to appear on December 12, 2012 to show cause why she should not be compelled to obey the Internal Revenue Service summons issued on April 27, 2012. Dckt. No. 5. The December 12, 2012 show cause hearing was then continued to January 16, 2013. Dckt. No. 7.
However, on January 2, 2013, petitioner filed a notice informing the court that "[i]n petitioner's view, respondent has sufficiently complied with the subject summons" and that "[a]ccordingly, the case may be closed." Dckt. No. 9. Petitioner also included a proposed order closing the case. Id. at 2. Because respondent has not filed either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the court construes this filing as a notice of dismissal made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(I), which deprives this court of jurisdiction over the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A) ("[T]he 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 . . . ."); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) ("Unless the notice [of dismissal] states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice."). 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). In light of that dismissal, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.*fn1