Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America

[8] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [9] EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01272-DAD-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK 13 v. OF THE COURT TO TERMINATE ABDU GAZALI AS A PARTY IN THIS ACTION 14 TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, (ECF Nos. 9, 11) [15] Defendant. [17] 18 On June 16, 2020, Farmers Insurance Exchange (“Plaintiff”) filed this action in the 19 Superior Court of California, County of Kern. On September 3, 2020, Travelers Casualty 20 Insurance Company of America removed the matter to the Eastern District of California. On 21 September 23, 2020, an order issued requiring Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not 22 issue for the failure to comply with a September 15, 2020 order requiring Plaintiff to either 23 dismiss Abdo Gazali1 from this action or file a notice of status of the defendant. The order was 24 served on Plaintiff by United States mail. On September 29, 2020, counsel Kevin Park filed a 25 notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. On September 30, 2020, a notice of voluntary 26 dismissal of Abdo Gazali was filed. [27] 1 The Court notes that the September 15, 2020 and September 23, 2020 orders contained an incorrect spelling of the 4:OU UV VEST OMA ONS RVUUEEOTIN Ae PIR Ie AY ev 1 Since counsel has recently filed a notice of appearance and the notice of voluntary 2 | dismissal has been filed in this matter, the order to show cause shall be discharged, but counsel is 3 | admonished that in the future once an order to show cause has issued a response is required. 4 Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to dismiss some or all 5 | of the defendants in an action through a Rule 41(a) notice. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 6 | 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). “The plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or 7 | some or all of his claims—through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.” Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493 , 8 | 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993).) “The plaintiff 9 | may dismiss either some or all of the defendants—or some or all of his claims—through a Rule 10 | 41(a)(1) notice.” Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing Pedrina v. Chun, 11 | 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir. 1993)); but see Hells Canyon Pres. Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 12 | F.3d 683, 687 (9th Cir. 2005) (The Ninth Circuit has “only extended the rule to allow the 13 | dismissal of all claims against one defendant, so that a defendant may be dismissed from the 14 | entire action.”). “Filing a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates 15 | the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Concha, 62 F.3d at 1506 . 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. The September 23, 2020 order requiring Plaintiff to show cause is 18 DISCHARGED; and 19 2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to terminate Abdo Gazali as a defendant in 20 this action. [21] IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee 23 | Dated: _ October 1, 2020_ Of UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE