Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Xingyu Liu sued United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and other defendants in the Central District of California. The case was assigned number 8:26-cv-02160-FWS-DFM. The two-page civil minutes identify the action only by its caption and do not describe the underlying immigration dispute, the relief Liu requested, or the arguments made in the parties' filings.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss at docket entry 13. Liu subsequently filed a notice of voluntary dismissal at docket entry 15. The court received that notice and observed that the defendants had not filed or served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on the defendants' motion had been noticed for November 12, 2026.
Judge Fred W. Slaughter issued the order in chambers on October 16, 2026, without attorneys present. The proceeding therefore concerned the procedural effect of Liu's notice and the status of the pending defense motion, rather than a decision on the merits of the claims or the grounds advanced for dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
The court found the notice effective under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). That rule allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Because neither event had occurred, Liu retained the right to dismiss by notice even though the defendants had already moved to dismiss.
The order explained that a motion to dismiss is not an answer for Rule 41(a)(1) purposes. It also stated that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, even when supported by outside materials, is not treated as a summary-judgment motion until the district court acts to convert it, preferably through an explicit ruling. The court cited Ninth Circuit decisions applying Rule 41(a) literally and providing that filing a notice automatically terminates the action as to the defendants covered by it.
The court accordingly dismissed the action. It emphasized that the notice itself closes the file and leaves no role for the court in reviving the action. For the avoidance of doubt, it denied the defendants' motion to dismiss as moot and vacated the November 12 hearing, taking it off calendar. The order did not decide whether the defendants' motion had merit or make any finding about Liu's underlying claims.
Key Takeaways
- A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss without a court order under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) before the opposing party serves an answer or a summary-judgment motion.
- A pending motion to dismiss does not cut off that right because it is neither an answer nor automatically a motion for summary judgment.
- The court treated Liu's notice as automatically terminating the action rather than as a request requiring discretionary approval.
- The defendants' motion was denied as moot, and its November 12, 2026 hearing was vacated and removed from the calendar.
- The disposition resolved the case procedurally and did not address the merits of the immigration-related dispute.
Why It Matters
The order is a concise application of the timing rules governing voluntary dismissal. Its practical point is that substantial motion practice does not, by itself, eliminate a plaintiff's unilateral right to dismiss: the relevant question is whether an answer or summary-judgment motion has been served, and whether a Rule 12(b)(6) motion has actually been converted.
For this case, the notice ended the action and deprived the pending dismissal motion of any continuing practical role. The court's mootness ruling and cancellation of the hearing implemented that result; they were not merits rulings for either side. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the dismissal was without prejudice unless the notice stated otherwise, and the minutes do not indicate that Liu specified otherwise.