Martinez v. Kings County, et al.

Filing 46

ORDER CLOSING CASE in Light of 45 Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice and DENYING 44 Request to take Deposition as MOOT signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 2/23/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LUIS ROBERTO MARTINEZ ,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiff
v.

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-1569 AWI DLB (PC)
ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE AND DENYING REQUEST
TO TAKE DEPOSITION AS MOOT

KINGS COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants

(Doc. Nos. 44, 45)

13
14
15
On January 5, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice
16
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). See Doc. No. 45. The notice is signed by
17
all remaining parties who have appeared in this case.
18
19
20
21
22
23

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:
(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a
notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion
for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who
have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the
dismissal is without prejudice.

24

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

25

answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have appeared,

26

although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. See Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. &

27

Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th

28

1

Cir. 1986). Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made

2

in open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

3

41(a)(1)(A); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule

4

41(a) (1) (ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and

5

does not require judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v.

6

A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG,

7
8
9
10

377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074,
1077 (9th Cir. 1999).
As the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under Rule

11

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

12

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

13

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

14
15
16

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of the

17

filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice and

18

Defendant’s request to take plaintiff’s deposition (Doc. No. 44) is DENIED as moot.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21

Dated: February 23, 2015

22

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2