Van Maanen v. Youth With a Mission-Bishop et al

Filing 151

ORDER Dismissing Defendant Youth With A Mission-Bishop With Prejudice In Light Of Stipulation Of Dismissal (Doc. No. 150 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/18/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

JACO VAN MAANEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
YOUTH WITH A MISSION-BISHOP; )
YOUTH WITH A MISSION
)
INTERNATIONAL, INC. d/b/a YWAM- )
OFFICE OF THE FOUNDERS;
)
UNIVERSITY OF THE NATIONS, INC. )
d/b/a YWAM-UNIVERSITY OF THE
)
NATIONS, and DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)

1:10-CV-00493 AWI-JLT
ORDER DISMISSING
DEFENDANT YOUTH WITH A
MISSION-BISHOP WITH
PREJUDICE IN LIGHT OF
STIPULATION OF
DISMISSAL
(Doc No. 150)

15
16
On January 6, 2012, Plaintiff and Youth With a Mission-Bishop filed a notice of
17
voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to Defendant Youth With a Mission-Bishop only. See
18
Court’s Docket, Doc. No. 150. Although the notice purports to be made pursuant to Federal Rule
19
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), it was not signed by each party who has appeared in this case.
20
Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:
21

25

an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) by filing a
notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or
of a motion for summary judgment, whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a
stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.
Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is
without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication
upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of
the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.

26

Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily after service of an

27

answer by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties, although an oral

28

stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d

22
23
24

1

1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). Once the

2

stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in open court, no

3

order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782

4

F.2d at 1473 n.4. “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his

5

claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically terminates the action as

6

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

7

London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).

8
9

Although Defendants Youth With a Mission-International, Inc. and University of the
Nations, Inc. did not sign the stipulation, they received notice of it and did not object. Nor did

10

they did not object to the Court’s good faith settlement determination. See Court’s Docket, Doc.

11

No. 148. In light of these facts, the Court finds that dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) is appropriate.

12

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Youth With a Mission-Bishop is

13

DISMISSED from this case with prejudice in light of the parties’ Voluntary Stipulation of

14

Dismissal.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

Dated:
0m8i78

January 18, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2