Neil et al v. Modesto City Schools District et al

Filing 18

ORDER Directing Clerk to Terminate Defendant County of Stanislaus, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 5/18/17. County of Stanislaus terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
DONESHIA NEIL, et al.

9
10

Plaintiffs,

11

v.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00256-LJO-SKO
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
TERMINATE DEFENDANT COUNTY OF
STANISLAUS
(Doc. 17)

12

MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS DISTRICT, et
al.,

13
14

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

15
16
17

On May 17, 2017, Plaintiffs and Defendant County of Stanislaus filed a Stipulation and

18 Order of Dismissal (the “Stipulation”), in which they notify the Court that Defendant County of
19 Stanislaus has been dismissed from this action with prejudice. (Doc. 17.) This Stipulation is
20 signed by all parties who have appeared in this action.1 (See id. at 2.) As such, Plaintiffs have
21 voluntarily dismissed Defendant County of Stanislaus with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of
22 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The Court therefore DIRECTS the Clerk to terminate Defendant
23 County of Stanislaus on the docket for this case.
24
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
27
28

1

The Complaint names numerous additional Defendants, (see Doc. 10), who did not sign the Stipulation, (see Doc.
17). However, only County of Stanislaus has appeared at this time. As such, the absence of signatures in the
Stipulation for the remaining Defendants does not preclude voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (“[T]he plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by
filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.”).

1 Dated:
2

May 18, 2017

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.