Gastelum

Gastelum v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMarch 3, 20253:24-cv-01018California317 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No.: 24-cv-1018-RSH-DDL

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiff, 13 v.

NORDSTROM, INC.,

16 Defendant. 17

19 On February 25, 2025, Plaintiff Fernando Gastelum filed a Notice of Voluntary 20 Dismissal of the instant case with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. ECF 21 No. 26. Because Defendant has filed an answer, Plaintiff’s filing of a notice of dismissal 22 does not operate to terminate the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(1)(A)(i) (“[P]laintiff may 23 dismiss an action without a court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the opposing 24 party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.”). 25 Instead, the Court construes the Plaintiff’s notice as a motion to voluntarily dismiss 26 an action “upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems 27 || proper” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). “A motion for voluntary 2 || dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is addressed to the district court's sound discretion[.|” Segal …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.