Reeves v. Performant Recovery, Inc.

Filing 12

ORDER directing the clerk of court to administratively close case signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 1/13/2015. CASE CLOSED.(Lundstrom, T)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6
7
8

WADE REEVES,
Plaintiff,
vs.
PERFORMANT RECOVERY, INC.,

9
10

Defendant.

11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:14-cv-01504---BAM
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
COURT TO ADMINISTRATIVELY
CLOSE CASE

12
13
14
15

16
17
18
19

On January 13, 2015, Plaintiff Wade Reeves and Defendant Performant Recovery, Inc.
filed a “Joint Motion for Dismissal of Action With Prejudice” signed by all parties to this
action. (Doc. 9). In relevant part, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) provides:
[A] plaintiff may dismiss an action with 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.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).

20

Rule 41(a)(1)(B) further provides that a dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) is

21

without prejudice “[u]nless the notice or stipulation states otherwise.” Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

22

thus allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action with prejudice by filing a written

23
stipulation to that effect signed by all parties who have appeared in the action. Such a

24
25

stipulation of dismissal is self-executing and does not require an order of the court to effectuate

26

dismissal. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 147 (9th Cir. 1986) (Rule 41(a)(1) provides for

27

dismissal by the plaintiff without order of the court by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed

28

by all parties who have appeared in the action); DeLeon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283 (10th

Page 1

1

Cir. 2011) (“A stipulation of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is self-executing and

2

immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464,

3

466 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (“[c]aselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) is

4
5
6

clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not
require judicial approval”) (parentheses in original) (citation omitted); Casida v. Sears Holding

7

Corp, No. 1:11-cv-1052-AWI-JLT, 2013 WL 1314051, at *1 (E.D. Cal. April 1, 2013) (the

8

filing of stipulation for dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) terminates the

9

action).

10

Given that Plaintiff and Defendant have filed a joint motion for dismissal with

11
12
13

prejudice signed by all parties to this action, this case is terminated. Accordingly, the Clerk of
the Court is ORDERED to ADMINISTRATIVELY close this case.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
Dated:
17

/s/ Barbara

January 13, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23

24
25
26
27
28

Page 2