Finding that it is "beyond debate that a dismissal under Rule 41 is effective on filing, no court order is required, the parties are left as though no action had been brought, the defendant can't complain, and the district court lacks jurisdiction to do anything about it"
97 F. Supp. 2d 993 (N.D. Cal. 1999) Cited 27 times
Holding that it was inappropriate to count losses or profits by "in-and-out" traders and assuming a constant fraud premium despite movant's argument that partial disclosures may have begun seeping into the pool of information available to the investors
Noting that "the district court properly construed [plaintiff's] 'motion' for voluntary dismissal as a notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41" and that " voluntary dismissal filed before any responsive pleading is filed is self-executing and automatically effects dismissal of the case." A court order granting any such motion is, therefore, "superfluous" and the effective date of dismissal of the suit is the date the notice of voluntary dismissal is filed