Xingyu Liu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al.

__________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:26-cv-02160-FWS-DFM Date: October 16, 2026 Title: Xingyu Liu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al. Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Rolls Royce Paschal N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER DISMISSING CASE PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL [15] The court has received Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Dkt. 15.) The court further observes that although Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. 13 (“Motion”)), Defendants have not filed or “serve[d] either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); (see generally Dkt.) Accordingly, the court finds the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal effective under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits dismissal of an action “without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); see Miller v. Reddin, 422 F.2d 1264, 1266 (9th Cir. 1970) (holding a motion to dismiss does not constitute an “answer” for purposes of Rule 41(a)(1)); Swedberg v. Marotzke, 339 F.3d 1139, 1146 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even if supported by extraneous materials, is not regarded as a “motion for summary judgment” under Rule 41(a)(1) until the district court “acts to convert the motion, preferably by an explicit ruling”); see also Hamilton v. Shearson-Lehman Am. Exp., Inc., 813 F.2d 1532, 1534 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Courts applying Rule 41(a) have given it a literal interpretation.”) (collecting cases); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (“The filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.”) (citation omitted); Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice itself closes the file. There is nothing the defendant can do to fan the ashes of that action into life and the court has no role to play.”) (cleaned up); ____________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No. 8:26-cv-02160-FWS-DFM Date: October 16, 2026 Title: Xingyu Liu v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services et al. cf. Am. Soccer Co. v. Score First Enterprises, a Div. of Kevlar Indus., 187 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Courts have refused to weigh the amount of effort expended by the defendant or the district court, instead holding that ‘rule 41(a)(1) means what it says.’”) (collecting cases). This action is therefore DISMISSED. For the avoidance of doubt, the Motion is DENIED AS MOOT, and the hearing on the Motion noticed for November 12, 2026, is VACATED and OFF CALENDAR. ____________________________________________________________________________