Arnold v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, 18-cv-02982-KAW. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20181004f32
Visitors: 5
Filed: Oct. 03, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 03, 2018
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Re: Dkt. No. 49. KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff Marie A. Arnold filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice. 1 (Dkt. No. 49.) Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without a court order where the notice of dismissal was filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, although Defendants have filed motions to dismis
Summary: ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Re: Dkt. No. 49. KANDIS A. WESTMORE , Magistrate Judge . On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff Marie A. Arnold filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice. 1 (Dkt. No. 49.) Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without a court order where the notice of dismissal was filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, although Defendants have filed motions to dismiss..
More
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Re: Dkt. No. 49.
KANDIS A. WESTMORE, Magistrate Judge.
On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff Marie A. Arnold filed a notice of dismissal without prejudice.1 (Dkt. No. 49.) Per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss a case without a court order where the notice of dismissal was filed before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, although Defendants have filed motions to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a federal claim, no answer or motion for summary judgment has been filed. (See Dkt. Nos. 33, 35.) Therefore, dismissal without prejudice is appropriate.
Plaintiff also asks that the Court refund her $400 filing fee. As the Court previously explained in its July 2, 2018 order, "[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States has a long-standing policy that generally prohibits the refunding of fees, subject to the following narrow exceptions: duplicate payments or other erroneous overpayments of fees, special assessments, fines or restitution may be refunded." (Dkt. No. 22 at 2; Gen. Ord. No. 68.) A voluntary dismissal does not fall within any of these limited circumstances. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's request that the $400 filing fee be refunded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. In the alternative, Plaintiff asks that the case be sent to state court. (Dkt. No. 49.) The Court knows of no authority to transfer a case that was originally filed in federal court to a state court.
Source: Leagle
