Block v. California-Fresno Investment Company ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 HENDRIK BLOCK, Case No. 1:22-cv-01419-JLT-SAB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO TERMINATE CEDAR PLAZA, INC. AS 11 v. DEFENDANT IN THIS ACTION 12 CALIFORNIA-FRESNO INVESTMENT (ECF No. 21) COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 15 On July 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 41(a) as to the dismissal of Defendant Cedar Plaza, Inc. (ECF No. 21.) The 17 dismissal of this Defendant is without prejudice. (Id. at 1.) The claims against the other named 18 Defendant are not subject to the stipulation and will remain active. 19 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all of 20 the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 21 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); see also Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (“The 22 plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through 23 a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.”)); Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 687 24 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the dismissal of all claims 25 against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the entire action.”). “Filing a 26 notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the 27 defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506. /// 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Defendant Cedar Plaza, Inc. as a defendant in this action. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 5 Dated: _ July 25, 2023 ‘ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28