Jane Doe #2 v. State of California et al

Filing 19

ORDER GRANTING Extension of Time to File Dispositional Documents, Discharging Order to Show Cause, and Dismissing Action Pursuant to Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/13/2023. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. 1:23-cv-00869-JLT-SAB

JANE DOE #2,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS,
DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE,
AND DISMISSING ACTION PURSUANT TO
NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
(ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18)

16
17
18

On October 3, 2023, this matter was settled at a settlement conference at least as to some

19

named parties, and dispositional documents were to be filed withing thirty (30) days. (ECF No.

20

15.) On November 7, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause as neither dispositional

21

documents, nor a request for extension, was filed by the deadline. (ECF No. 16.)

22

On November 7, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause

23

indicating that: the parties were working on draft settlement agreements after the date of

24

settlement; the final drafts of these agreements were emailed by defense counsel on October 23,

25

2023; after receipt of the final drafts, Plaintiff’s counsel worked diligently to obtain client

26

signatures, and obtained the client’s signature on October 24, 2023; counsel for Plaintiff emailed

27

the executed settlement agreement to defense counsel on October 25, 2023; counsel for Plaintiff

28

has requested a fully executed copy of the Settlement Agreement and Release prior to filing
1

1

dismissal documents, but has not been provided a fully executed copy as of the date of the

2

declaration; counsel for Plaintiff has indicated that he will sign and return dismissal documents as

3

soon as Jane Doe #2 receives a copy of the fully executed settlement agreement; counsel for

4

Plaintiff respectfully requests an additional 30 days to file dismissal documents as it is unknown

5

when a fully executed copy will be provided; and counsel will immediately sign and return

6

dispositional documents upon receipt of the fully executed settlement agreement. (ECF No. 17 at

7

1-2.)

8

While Defendants have not directly provided a response to the order to show cause, in

9

light of the Plaintiff’s filing, and the stipulation of dismissal immediately filed thereafter by

10

Defendants, discussed next, the Court shall discharge the order to show cause. However, in most

11

cases, the Court would not discharge an order to show cause until all parties have explained their

12

positions.

13

On November 9, 2023, a stipulation of dismissal was filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)

14

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 18.) The stipulation is filed by counsel for

15

Plaintiff, and by counsel for Defendants State of California, CDCR, and M. Pallares. Defendant

16

Greg Rodriguez is named as a Defendant, however, has not appeared in this action, as noted in

17

the filing. No Defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. The filing

18

provides that the stipulating parties agree to dismissal of this action and all claims and causes of

19

action with prejudice, and with the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

20

Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘a plaintiff has an

21

absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a

22

motion for summary judgment.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193

23

F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir.

24

1997)). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that a “plaintiff

25

may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all

26

parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

27

In light of the filing, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii);

28

Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with
2

1

prejudice and without an award of costs or attorneys’ fees.

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4

The order to show cause issued on November 7, 2023, (ECF No. 16), is
DISCHARGED;

5

2.

6

Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to file dispositional documents is
GRANTED; and

7

3.

8

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the
docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).

9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 13, 2023
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3