Ermert v. Modernly Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FALCO ERMERT, Case No. 1:23-cv-01037-JLT-SAB 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE 12 COURT TO TERMINATE MARGARITA v. ARAMBULA CANO AND JOSE ANTONIO 13 CHAVEZ AS PARTIES IN THIS ACTION MODERNLY INC., et al., 14 (ECF No. 4) Defendants. 15 16 17 On October 5, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal of Margarita Arambula Cano and 18 Jose Antonio Chavez pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 4.) 19 The dismissal of these Defendants is without prejudice. (Id. at 1.) Rule 41(a) of the Federal 20 Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of the defendants in an action 21 through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see 22 also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The plaintiff may dismiss either 23 some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); 24 but see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (The 25 Ninth Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims against one 26 defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action.”). “Filing a notice of 27 voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who 28 are the subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506. 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Margarita Arambula Cano 2 | and Jose Antonio Chavez as defendants in this action. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 | Dated: _ October 6, 2023 ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28