Curiel v. Fresno Credit Bureau et al

Filing 18

ORDER CLOSING CASE in Light of Stipuliation for DISMISSAL with Prejudice signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/10/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MONIQUE CURIEL,

9
10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-580 AWI GSA

Plaintiff,
ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF
STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
FRESNO CREDIT BUREAU, and THE
LAW OFFICE OF JOHN D. SUHR,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 16)

14
15
16
On September 10, 2015, the parties filed a motion to dismiss this action with prejudice.
17
See Doc. No. 16. The Court views this motion as a stipulation for dismissal of this case with
18
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).
19
20
21
22
23
24

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.

25

Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not

26

require a court order/court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Yesh Music v. Lakewood

27

Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d

28

1
2

1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); In re
Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989).
Here, all parties who have appeared in this case signed the stipulated dismissal. Because

3
4
5

all parties have signed the stipulated dismissal with prejudice, this case has terminated
automatically. See id.

6
7
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8
9

1.

41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice; and

10
11
12

The Clerk shall CLOSE this case in light of the parties’ properly filed and signed Rule

2.

The September 10, 2015 motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED as unnecessary in
light of the automatic nature of a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulated dismissal.

13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16

Dated: September 10, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2