Leal v. Ruiz

Filing 10

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/13/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
CARLOS LEAL, JR.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JOANN RUIZ, an individual,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:12-CV-00642 AWI BAM
ORDER CLOSING CASE IN
LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

16
17
On July 12, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of
18
this matter 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
11

at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).
Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under

12

Rule 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 With Prejudice.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated:
0m8i78

July 13, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2