ORDER

LINDA R. READE, Chief District Judge.

This matter is before the court pursuant to the plaintiff's motion to strike (docket no. 34). The plaintiff filed such motion on August 28, 2014. In his motion to strike, the plaintiff contends that the dismissal of the unserved defendants, that is, the State of Iowa and the Iowa State Troopers Association, is not proper under LR 41(b)(1) because he did effectuate service. The court need not resolve whether the plaintiff properly effectuated service on the remaining defendants or whether some other provision of LR 41(b) applies because the plaintiff's entire action fails as a matter of law. The court concludes that the unserved defendants are entitled to benefit from the other defendants' dispositive motions because the controlling issues would be the same for the unserved defendants, the controlling issues have been briefed and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to address the controlling issues. See Abagninin v. AMVAC Chemical Corp., 545 F.3d 733, 742-43 (9th Cir. 2008); Transclean Corp. v. Jiffy Lube Int'l, Inc., 474 F.3d 1298, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Columbia Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Ahlstrom Recovery, 44 F.3d 800, 802-03 (9th Cir. 1995); Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Cathey, 977 F.2d 447, 449 (8th Cir. 1992); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(1) (permitting a court to grant summary judgment for a nonmovant). In light of the record, it cannot be said that the plaintiff filed his complaint in a timely manner. Because the applicable statutes of limitations bar all of the plaintiff's claims against all of the defendants, including the State of Iowa and the Iowa State Troopers Association, the motion to strike shall be denied and judgment shall be entered in favor of the State of Iowa and the Iowa State Troopers Association.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: