Palmer v. Iosefa et al

Filing 70

Order re: dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiffs supervisory liability claim (third claim for relief), signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 9/6/2018. (Rosales, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT PALMER,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-00787-SKO

v.
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
OFFICER IOSEFA, et al.,

ORDER RE: DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
OF PLAINTIFF’S SUPERVISORY
LIABILITY CLAIM (THIRD CLAIM FOR
RELIEF)

Defendants.

16
17
18

At the pretrial conference held September 5, 2018, the parties stipulated on the record to the

19

dismissal of Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Third Claim for Relief),

20

with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

21

In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides as follows: [A] plaintiff may dismiss an

22

action without a court order by filing. . . (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who

23

have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the

24

defendants, or some or all of his claims” through a Rule 41(a)(1) stipulation. Wilson v. City of San

25

Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Such stipulation may be made orally in open court. See

26

Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool,

27

782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986).

28

//

1

Because the parties orally stipulated in open court to the dismissal of Plaintiff’s supervisory

2

liability claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Third Claim for Relief), with prejudice under Rule

3

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), that claim has been DISMISSED. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).
This case shall remain OPEN pending resolution of Plaintiff’s remaining claims against

4
5

Defendant.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 6, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.