RODEMS v. CHICO'S FAS, INC., 1:16-cv-01711-AWI-EPG. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170227849
Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Feb. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER TERMINATING DOES 1-25 AS DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 10) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice dismissing DOES 1-25 without prejudice. (ECF No. 10.) No court order was required under Rule 41 to effectuate the dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688 , 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate DOES 1-25 on the docket as defendants and the pending motion (ECF
Summary: ORDER TERMINATING DOES 1-25 AS DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 10) ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice dismissing DOES 1-25 without prejudice. (ECF No. 10.) No court order was required under Rule 41 to effectuate the dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688 , 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate DOES 1-25 on the docket as defendants and the pending motion (ECF ..
More
ORDER TERMINATING DOES 1-25 AS DEFENDANTS (ECF No. 10)
ERICA P. GROSJEAN, Magistrate Judge.
On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice dismissing DOES 1-25 without prejudice. (ECF No. 10.) No court order was required under Rule 41 to effectuate the dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Therefore, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate DOES 1-25 on the docket as defendants and the pending motion (ECF No. 10).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
