Aaron v. Cano et al

Filing 49

ORDER CLOSING CASE In Light of 48 Stipulation for Dismissal With Prejudice, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/23/2011. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00664-AWI-GBC (PC)
11

GEORGE AARON, JR.,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

S. CANO, et al.,

15

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

Defendants.
____________________________________

(Doc. 48)

16
17
On September 9, 2010, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice
18
of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
19
Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides that, “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order
20
by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion
21
for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have
22
appeared.” Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after
23
service of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who
24
have appeared. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989).
25
Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed, no order of the
26
court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(ii). “‘[C]aselaw concerning
27
stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of
28

1

dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.’” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d

2

464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (quoting Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th

3

Cir. 1984)); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004);

4

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. City

5

of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). “The plaintiff may dismiss either some or all of

6

the defendants-or some or all of his claims-through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice.” Concha v. London,

7

62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). The dismissal “automatically terminates the action as to the

8

defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

9

Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under

10

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has

11

terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747

12

F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077;

13

Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

14

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

15

of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:
0m8i78

August 23, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2