Hendricks v. Factory 2-U Stores, et al

Filing 18

DISMISSAL ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/27/14. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JANETT HENDRICKS,

8

2:03-cv-000148-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,

9
10

No.

v.

DISMISSAL ORDER

FACTORY 2-U STORES, INC.,

11

Defendant.

12
In response to the April 1, 2013 Order that directed

13
14

the

parties

15

proceedings,” Plaintiff filed a Status Report on April 12, 2013,

16

in which she states:

17

to

“explain

the

status

of

the

bankruptcy

Plaintiff’s counsel, Charles E. Bauer,
has discussed this matter with counsel for
defendant FACTORY 2-U STORES, INC., and they
are in agreement that the bankruptcy of
defendant has discharged all of its debts and
liabilities, including any liability which
may have existed in this matter. Plaintiff’s
counsel is preparing a stipulation and order
for dismissal which should be filed within
the next week.

18
19
20
21
22
23

(Pl.’s Status Report, ECF No. 17.)
No stipulation and order for dismissal has been filed.

24
25

However,

in

26

dismissed. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir.

27

1986) (affirming a district court’s dismissal of an action under

28

Federal

Rule

light

of

of

Civil

the

parties’

Procedure
1

agreement,

41(a)(1)(ii),

this

action

stating

is

“[t]he

1

court reasonably concluded that the parties had the requisite

2

mutual

3

representations to the court”).

4

Dated:

intent

to

dismiss

the

March 27, 2014

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

action”

based

upon

“their