Ward v. Wright et al

Filing 127

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Robert M. Illman on 1/11/2019. (rmilc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/11/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

EUREKA DIVISION

7
8

JESSE WARD,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 15-cv-05627-RMI
ORDER

v.
STEPHEN WRIGHT, et al.,
Defendants.

13
14

On January 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal pursuant to Federal

15

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). (Doc. 1). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to

16

voluntarily dismiss an action without court order by filing “a notice of dismissal before the

17

opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment.” In this case,

18

Defendants have answered. Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without

19

court order even if it has been answered or a motion for summary judgment has been filed.

20

However, that provision requires that the notice contain “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all

21

parties who have appeared.” The current Notice is only signed by Plaintiff.

22

It appears then that Plaintiff intended to seek a court order of dismissal pursuant to Rule

23

41(a)(2), which provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court

24

order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Knowing that the terms of Plaintiff’s request are

25

based on the parties’ joint resolution of this matter, the court deems them proper.

26
27
28

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED in its entirety with prejudice,
with each side to bear its own costs and fees.
A separate judgment will issue.

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2019

3
4
ROBERT M. ILLMAN
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2