Merino et al v. El Dorado Hills County Water District

Filing 51

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 11/27/12 ORDERING that the stipulated dismissal 49 will not be approved in its current form. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DAVID MERINO; STEVE
MARANVILLE; KARA MERINO;
BRENDA MARANVILLE,

11
NO. CIV. S-10-2152 LKK/DAD
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.
O R D E R

14
15

EL DORADO HILLS COUNTY
WATER DISTRICT; and
DOES 1-50,

16
Defendants.
17

/

18

Plaintiffs David Merino and Steve Maranville, together with

19

defendant El Dorado Hills County Water District, have stipulated

20

to the dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice.

21

order calls for the dismissal of “the entire action, as to each and

22

every party, with prejudice” (ECF No. 50) (emphasis added).

Their proposed

23

However, the stipulation is not signed on behalf of plaintiffs

24

Kara Merino and Brenda Maranville (the spouses of the dismissing

25

plaintiffs), who have asserted Loss of Consortium claims.

26

parties intend to dismiss the entire lawsuit as to “each and every
1

If the

1

party,” their stipulation must include each and every party, which

2

the submitted one does not.1

3
4

Accordingly, the stipulated dismissal will not be approved in
its current form.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

DATED:

November 27, 2012.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

If the parties deliberately omitted the dismissing
plaintiffs’ spouses from the stipulated dismissal, the stipulation
must make that clear (however, in that case, the court will likely
dismiss those spouses’ state Loss of Consortium claims sua sponte
for lack of federal jurisdiction).
2