-EFB (PS) Moore, et al v. Bank of America, et al, No. 2:2010cv02445 - Document 16 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 12/22/10 Recommending that Plaintiff Moore's claims against defendant Turner be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and that Moore be permitted to wit hdraw as a Plaintiff in this action. These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr. Within fourteen days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF

-EFB (PS) Moore, et al v. Bank of America, et al Doc. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 TERESA J. MOORE, GERTRUDE V. VIZMANOS, No. CIV S-10-2445 FCD EFB PS 10 Plaintiffs, 11 vs. 12 BANK OF AMERICA, et al., ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 Defendants. 14 15 / On December 1, 2010, plaintiff Teresa Moore filed a notice of voluntary dismissal 16 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(1). Dckt. No. 13. Then, on 17 December 8, 2010, because it was unclear from Moore’s filing whether only Moore was seeking 18 the voluntary dismissal or whether plaintiff Gertrude Vizmanos was also seeking the dismissal, 19 and whether plaintiff(s) were seeking to dismiss only defendant Bank of America or all 20 defendants, the undersigned issued an order directing plaintiff(s) to file a revised notice of 21 voluntary dismissal clarifying those issues. Dckt. No. 14. 22 On December 16, 2010, Moore filed a revised notice of voluntary dismissal clarifying 23 that only she was seeking the dismissal (not Vizmanos) and that she was seeking to dismiss her 24 claims against all defendants. Dckt. No. 15. Rule 41(a) permits fewer than all plaintiffs to 25 withdraw from an action and authorizes a plaintiff to dismiss, without a court order, any 26 defendants who have not yet served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. See 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a); Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609-10 (9th Cir. 1993) (“Rule 41(a)(1) 2 allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet to serve an answer 3 or a motion for summary judgment.”); Moore’s Federal Practice, § 41.21[3][b] (3d ed. 2010) 4 (“Under the same rationale authorizing the dismissal of fewer than all defendants . . . , courts 5 have held that Rule 41(a) permits fewer than all plaintiffs to withdraw from an action.”). Here, 6 only defendant Edward Turner has filed an answer to plaintiffs’ complaint and no defendant has 7 served a motion for summary judgment. See Dckt. No. 12. Therefore, upon the filing of 8 Moore’s revised notice of voluntary dismissal, Dckt. No. 15, her claims against all defendants 9 except Turner were voluntarily dismissed. 10 However, because Moore also seeks to dismiss defendant Turner, who has filed an 11 answer to plaintiffs’ complaint, and because Moore has not obtained a stipulation of dismissal by 12 all parties who have appeared in this action, the dismissal of defendant Turner must be by court 13 order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); 41(a)(2). 14 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that plaintiff Moore’s claims against 15 defendant Turner be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and that Moore be 16 permitted to withdraw as a plaintiff in this action. 17 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 18 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 19 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 20 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 21 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 22 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 23 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: December 22, 2010. 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.