Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Boards of Trustees of the Roofers Local 27 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Absolute Urethane, 1:18-cv-00623-DAD-SAB. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190820b09
Filed: Aug. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ECF No. 19) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiffs Boards of Trustees of the Roofers Local 27 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Roofers Local 27, Fresno Roofing Contractors Vacation Fund, and Roofers Local 27 Apprenticeship Training Fund filed this action on May 7, 2018 against Defendant Absolute Urethane. On June 7, 2018, the Clerk of the Cour
More

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

(ECF No. 19)

Plaintiffs Boards of Trustees of the Roofers Local 27 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, Roofers Local 27, Fresno Roofing Contractors Vacation Fund, and Roofers Local 27 Apprenticeship Training Fund filed this action on May 7, 2018 against Defendant Absolute Urethane. On June 7, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant Absolute Urethane. On April 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The notice states that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and the action is to be dismissed without prejudice in its entirety.

Plaintiff seeks for the court to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The Court declines to retain jurisdiction without a specific showing that it is necessary in this action. This Court is one of the busiest Court's in the country and sees no need to tie up two judges with retention of jurisdiction without good cause. Plaintiff has not set forth any reason why the court should retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.

"[U]nder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), `a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.'" Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993). "[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it." Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc., 193 F.3d at 1078. In this action, the defendant did not file an answer and default was entered.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer