Nunes et al v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 102

ORDER DISCHARGING Order to Show Cause and DIRECTING Clerk of Court to CLOSE CASE and Adjust the Docket to Reflect Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/11/2022. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANGELINA NUNES, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-00633-DAD-SAB
ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE DOCKET
TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a) OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
(ECF Nos. 99, 100, 101)

16
17
18

Plaintiffs Angelina Nunes, Emanuel Alves, and minors D.X. and L.X.’s (collectively

19

“Plaintiffs”) initiated this civil action against Defendants County of Stanislaus, Kristen Johnson,

20

and Eric Anderson on May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On June 21, 2022, the Court granted the joint

21

petition for minor’s compromise as to Plaintiffs D.X. and L.X.’s claims and approved the

22

settlement. (ECF No. 98.) The parties were directed to file a stipulation or request for dismissal

23

of the action within fourteen days, or July 5, 2022. (Id. at 2.) As of July 6, 2022, the parties had

24

not filed anything. Accordingly, the Court issued an order to show cause why monetary sanctions

25

should not issue for the failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 99.)

26

On July 8, 2022, the parties concurrently filed a response to the order to show cause and a

27

joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice. (ECF Nos. 100, 101.) The parties proffer they

28

mistakenly believed that, because the Nunes I and Nunes II cases were related, they did not need
1

1

to file notices of dismissal in both cases, despite the Court’s language specifying that the cases

2

were merely being related and not consolidated. The parties apologize for the oversight and

3

request that sanctions not issue. (ECF No. 100.) The Court finds good cause exists to discharge

4

the order to show cause.

5

Further, in light of the notice of dismissal, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been

7

dismissed with prejudice, pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.

8

Accordingly, IS IT HEREBY ORDERED that the May 24, 2022 order to show cause

9

(ECF No. 99) is DISCHARGED. Furthermore, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED

10

to close the case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to

11

Rule 41(a).

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 11, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2