# Board of Trustees of the Roofers Local 27 Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Absolute Urethane

> District Court, E.D. California · August 19, 2019

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10013311

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. California
- **Decided:** August 19, 2019
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10013311

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10

11 BOARDS OF TRUSTEES OF THE Case No. 1:18-cv-00623-DAD-SAB
ROOFERS LOCAL 27 HEALTH AND
12 WELFARE TRUST FUND, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE AND REFLECT
13 Plaintiffs, VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO
RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF
14 v.
CIVIL PROCEDURE
15 ABSOLUTE URETHANE,
(ECF No. 19)
16 Defendant.

17
18 Plaintiffs Boards of Trustees of the Roofers Local 27 Health and Welfare Trust Fund,
19 Roofers Local 27, Fresno Roofing Contractors Vacation Fund, and Roofers Local 27
20 Apprenticeship Training Fund filed this action on May 7, 2018 against Defendant Absolute
21 Urethane. On June 7, 2018, the Clerk of the Court entered default against Defendant Absolute
22 Urethane. On April 17, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. The notice states
23 that the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and the action is to be dismissed without
24 prejudice in its entirety.
25 Plaintiff seeks for the court to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement. The
26 Court declines to retain jurisdiction without a specific showing that it is necessary in this action.
27 This Court is one of the busiest Court’s in the country and sees no need to tie up two judges with
retention of jurisdiction without good cause. Plaintiff has not set forth any reason why the court
1 | should retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement.
2 “(UJnder Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Q@), “a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his
3 | action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a motion for summary judgment.’ ”
4 Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999)
5 | (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)). The Ninth Circuit has
6 | held that Rule 41(a) allows a plaintiff to dismiss without a court order any defendant who has yet
7 | to serve an answer or motion for summary judgment. Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th
8 | Cir. 1993). “[A] dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) is effective on filing, no court order is required,
9 | the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can’t complain, and the
10 | district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it.” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co.., Inc., 193
11 | F.3d at 1078. In this action, the defendant did not file an answer and default was entered.
12 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this
13 | case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule (a).
14
5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee
16 | Dated: _ August 19, 2019
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10013311. Public record. Not legal advice.