Lema v. Modesto
Filing
43
ORDER Closing Case in Light of Stipulation for Dismissal 42 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/9/12. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
GENEVA LEMA,
11
12
13
14
15
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF MODESTO,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)
NO. 1:10-CV-02180 AWI GSA
ORDER CLOSING CASE IN
LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR
DISMISSAL
16
17
On March 8, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this matter
18
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
19
Rule 41(a)(1)(A), in relevant part, reads:
20
22
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; (ii) a stipulated dismissal signed by all parties who have
appeared.
23
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(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 who have appeared,
25
although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan
26
Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir.
27
1986). Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in
28
open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro.
21
1
41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule
2
41(a) (1) (ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and
3
does not require judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v.
4
A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG,
5
377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074,
6
1077 (9th Cir. 1999) cf. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)
7
(addressing Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants,
8
or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically
9
terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson, 111 F.3d
10
at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).
11
Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case under Rule
12
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has
13
terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747
14
F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077; cf.
15
Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.
16
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light
17
of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal.
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated:
0m8i78
March 9, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?