ORDER DENYING WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION [38]

OTIS D. WRIGHT, II, District Judge.

In light of the Opinion issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 3, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff Sandi Rush to file an Amended Complaint by July 31, 2015. (ECF Nos. 33, 36.) Instead, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on July 31, 2015. (ECF No. 37.) On August 3, 2015, Plaintiff withdrew her Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (ECF No. 38.) The Court finds that Plaintiff's withdrawal was improper and the case should remain closed pursuant to the voluntary dismissal on July 31, 2015.

A voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i) grants a plaintiff "`an absolute right to dismiss [ ] without prejudice' . . . and requires no action on the part of the court." Duke Energy Trading and Mktg., LLC v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (quoting Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir.1993)) (first alteration in original). The filing "`itself closes the file. There is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play.'" Id. The effect of the filing "`is to leave the parties as though no action had been brought.'" Id. (quoting Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.1999)). "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." Id.

Here, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which automatically terminated the case and deprived the Court of jurisdiction. Once filed, Plaintiff could not unilaterally withdraw the Notice, and the Court could not enforce the withdrawal. See Luv N' Care, Ltd. v. Jackel Int'l Ltd., No. CIV.A. 13-1565, 2013 WL 5726052, at *2 (W.D. La. Oct. 21, 2013) ("When a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal becomes effective, the plaintiff may not withdraw the notice.").

Alternatively, the case should be dismissed because Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint per the Court's Order. Plaintiff's explanation for why the Court should withdraw the notice of voluntary dismissal is that the notice was filed incorrectly. If in fact the notice of voluntary dismissal was a mistake, then Plaintiff should have at least asked for an extension to file an amended complaint or simultaneously filed an amended complaint with her withdrawal. Instead, Plaintiff has once again tried to delay compliance with the Court's Order. The Court initially required Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by July 10, 2015 (ECF No. 33), but Plaintiff filed her meritless Motion for Reconsideration instead. (See ECF No. 34.) According to the Court's Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint was extended to July 31, 2015. Instead, Plaintiff "mistakenly" filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. Failure to comply with the Court's Order is an independent basis for dismissing the case. Langner v. Hoops, No. EDCV09-0690-CAS-JEM, 2009 WL 2877577, at *1 (C.D. Cal. July 31, 2009) ("The Court has the inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with court orders.").

Therefore, the withdrawal of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 38) is STRICKEN and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (ECF No. 37) will remain effective. This case is CLOSED effective July 31, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.