Yang et al v. Sun Trust Mortgage, Inc.

Filing 50

ORDER Dismissing Michael J. Carter without Prejudice in Light of Stipulation of Dismissal, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/4/11. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

CHANG BEE YANG, an individual, and
LAU YANG, an individual,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
SUN TRUST MORTGAGE, INC., a
)
Virginia Corporation, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:10-CV-01541 AWI SKO
ORDER DISMISSING MICHAEL
J. CARTER WITHOUT
PREJUDICE IN LIGHT OF
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

14
15
On August 3, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal of Michael J. Carter only,
16
without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii).
17
Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:
18

22

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.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

19
20
21

1

F.2d at 1473 n.4. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a) (1) (ii) is clear

2

that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require

3

judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co.,

4

747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139

5

(2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir.

6

1999) cf. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (addressing 41(a)(1)(i)).

7

“The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a

8

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

9

who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493,

10

1506 (9th Cir. 1995).

11

Because Plaintiffs have filed a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) as to only Michael

12

J. Carter, this case has terminated as to this Defendant only. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(ii); In

13

re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747 F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139;

14

Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077; cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

15

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Michael J. Carter is DISMISSED from this

16

case without prejudice in light of the parties’s filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary

17

dismissal.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:
0m8i78

August 4, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2