Caballero v. Williams ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Cesar Caballero, et al., No. 2:21-cv-00638-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 Michael Williams, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 The plaintiffs have dismissed this action voluntarily under Rule 41. ECF No. 25. That 18 | dismissal is effective without a court order because no opposing party has served an answer or 19 | motion for summary judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(). The order to show cause at 20 | ECF No. 24 is therefore discharged, and the motions to intervene and consolidate at ECF Nos. 9, 21 10, 11, and 23 are denied as moot. See United States v. Ford, 650 F.2d 1141, 1143 (9th Cir. 22 | 1981) (“Since there is no longer any action in which [the proposed intervenor] can intervene, 23 | judicial consideration of the question would be fruitless.”); Melamed v. Blue Cross of California, 24 | No. 11-4540, 2012 WL 122828, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2012) (denying a motion to consolidate 25 | as moot following dismissal under Rule 41(a)), aff'd, 557 F. App’x 659 (9th Cir. 2014). The 26 | clerk’s office is directed to close this case. 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. , / 28 DATED: August 18, 2021. CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE