Trujillo v. Conrad ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TRUJILLO, Case No. 1:19-cv-01627-AWI-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK 13 v. OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE ITALIAN CAFÉ GOURMET FOOD 14 ETHAN CONRAD, et al., SERVICE, INC. AS DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 61, 62, 63, 64) 16 ITALIAN CAFE GOURMET FOOD 17 SERVICE INC., 18 Cross Claimant 19 v. 20 ETHAN CONRAD, 21 Cross Defendant. 22 23 On March 9, 2021, a stipulation was filed to dismiss Defendant Italian Café Gourmet Food 24 Service, Inc. as a defendant in this matter. (ECF No. 61.) However, the stipulation did not 25 address the crossclaim filed by Italian Café Gourmet Food Service, Inc. against Ethan Conrad. 26 So on this same date, an order issued requiring the parties to address the status of the crossclaim 27 within three days. (ECF No. 62.) The deadline to address the crossclaim passed without a response being filed. On March 16, 2021, an order issued requiring the parties to show cause 1 why sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the March 16, 2021 order. (ECF 2 No. 63.) On this same date, a stipulation to dismiss the crossclaim against Ethan Conrad was 3 filed. (ECF No. 64.) 4 While the stipulation to dismiss the crossclaim has now been filed, the parties did not file 5 a response addressing the order to show cause. Counsel is advised that complying with the 6 original order does not address the failure to comply and a separate response to the order to show 7 cause is required. In this instance, the Court will discharge the order to show cause, but in the 8 future counsel will be required to separately address any order to show cause that is filed. 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action 10 without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Rule 41(a) also allows a party to dismiss some or all of the 12 defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 13 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The 14 plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through 15 a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); but see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 16 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal 17 of all claims against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire 18 action.”). “Filing a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the 19 action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506. 20 Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this action has been terminated 21 against Defendant Italian Café Gourmet Food Service, Inc. with prejudice and without an award 22 of costs and fees and Italian Café Gourmet Food Service, Inc.’s cross claim against Ethan Conrad 23 has been terminated with prejudice and without an award of costs and fees. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The March 9, 2021 order to show cause is DISCHARGED; and 3 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Italian Café Gourmet Food 4 Service, Inc. as a defendant in this matter. 5 6 T IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 7 Pated: _March 23, 2021 _ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28