civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Al-kubaisi voluntarily dismisses case against Progressive Urgent Care in California

25-cv-11093 N.D. Cal.
Active Court order issued Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Plaintiff Al-kubaisi voluntarily dismissed the case against Progressive Urgent Care, Inc. and other defendants in the Northern District of California. The dismissal was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), indicating no opposition from the defendants and no court order required.

Latest development

4:25-cv-11093 Al-kubaisi v. Progressive Urgent Care, Inc et al

Order · May 11, 2026

The court issued an order.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • Voluntary dismissal
  • FRCP 41(a)(1)
  • Northern District of California
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

N.D. Cal.

Northern District of California · 9th Circuit · CA

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Court order issued

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

4:25-cv-11093 Al-kubaisi v. Progressive Urgent Care, Inc et al

Order · May 11, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

0 articles

0 sources tracked

groups

Participants

1 Defendant, 1 Plaintiff

3 linked entities

gavel

Judge

Not assigned in feed

What the record shows

This case is tied to Northern District of California, a federal district court in CA.

The newest docket activity we have is a order dated May 11, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Progressive Urgent Care, Inc, Marquise Bailey and others.

No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 1 day, 13 hours ago

Al-kubaisi v. Progressive Urgent Care, Inc., et al, docket number 25-cv-11093 in the Northern District of California, remains active but has seen recent procedural movement.

The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case against certain defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), effectively ending claims against those parties without a court order. The dismissal occurred on May 11, 2026, signaling a narrowing of the dispute or a strategic withdrawal by the plaintiff.

The case has not yet been assigned to a judge, which suggests it is still in the early stages or awaiting further administrative processing. The key issues in the case have not been publicly detailed, and the docket does not reflect any substantive motions or rulings beyond the voluntary dismissal.

This procedural step does not resolve the entire case but reduces the number of defendants involved. The plaintiff’s decision to dismiss certain parties may indicate settlement discussions, reassessment of claims, or other strategic considerations.

The court issued an order on the same day as the dismissal, but the content of that order has not been disclosed. The absence of a judge assignment and limited docket activity suggest the case is still developing.

Parties and observers should watch for the court’s next scheduling order or any renewed motions that clarify the scope and direction of the litigation.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 1 day ago
The court issued an order.
receipt_long Source (filing) expand_more

Stipulation without Proposed Order ( 13

Open original open_in_new

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

About This Court

Northern District of California (N.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
gavel
Order May 11, 2026

4:25-cv-11093 Al-kubaisi v. Progressive Urgent Care, Inc et al

The court issued an order.

info
Other May 11, 2026

2:25-cv-11093 Marquise Bailey v. Maria Cid et al

The plaintiff, Marquise Bailey, voluntarily dismissed the case against Maria Cid and others under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). This means Bailey chose to end the lawsuit without a court order, likely before the defendants filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. The dismissal closes the case without a trial or judgment on the merits.

Advertisement
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

0 outlets · 0 articles

Timeline events

2 records on file

Last updated

1 day, 2 hours ago

Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.