Allen v. Verizon Wireless

Filing 9

ORDER Closing Case in Light of Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 08/30/2012. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
JOHANNA ALLEN,
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
VERIZON WIRELESS, an unknown
)
business entity dba Cellco Partnership,
)
and Does 1 - 20, Inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

NO. 1:12-CV-00896 AWI GSA
ORDER CLOSING CASE IN
LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

17
18
On August 27, 2012, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice
19
of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A).
20
Rule 41(a)(1)(A), in relevant part, reads:
21

23

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.

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. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan

27

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

28

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

22

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074,

7

1077 (9th Cir. 1999) cf. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997)

8

(addressing Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants,

9

or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically

10

terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson, 111 F.3d

11

at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).

12

Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under

13

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

14

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

15

F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077; cf.

16

Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

17

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

18

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

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:
ciem0h

August 30, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2