Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

RAULERSON v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., 2:14-cv-107-FtM-38DNF. (2014)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20140521a95 Visitors: 15
Filed: May 19, 2014
Latest Update: May 19, 2014
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mary Raulerson's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal ( Doc. #11 ) filed on April 14, 2014. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order, however, on March 13, 2014, this case was transferred to the Multi-District Litigation Panel (MDL) for the Southern District of California and the voluntary dismissal must be filed there. Thus, the Motion is due
More

ORDER1

SHERIPOLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Mary Raulerson's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. #11) filed on April 14, 2014. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order, however, on March 13, 2014, this case was transferred to the Multi-District Litigation Panel (MDL) for the Southern District of California and the voluntary dismissal must be filed there. Thus, the Motion is due to be stricken.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

The Plaintiff Mary Raulerson's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. #11) is hereby STRICKEN.

(1) The Clerk of the Court is directed to STRIKE and remove the Motion of Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. #11) from the Court's docket sheet. (2) The Plaintiff, Mary Raulerson is directed to file her Motion of Voluntary Dismissal with the Midland Credit Management, Inc. MDL Panel in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

DONE and ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other Web sites, this court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
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