Provino v. Balance Staffing, Inc. et al

Filing 44

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, GRANTING JOINT MOTIONS TO DISMISS re 43 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 20, 2013. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KATHLEEN PROVINO,

Case No. 12-cv-03051-JST

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC. D/B/A
BALANCE STAFFING SERVICES,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER NOTING DISMISSAL
OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
GRANTING JOINT MOTIONS TO
DISMISS
Re: ECF No. 43

12

Plaintiff and Defendant Staffing Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Balance Staffing Services have filed

13

a stipulation of dismissal dated December 3, 2013, stating that they have agreed to a settlement of

14

this action. ECF No. 43.

15

There is authority indicating that the dismissal is effective without Court order. “The

16

plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants . . . through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and “[t]he

17

filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal with the court automatically terminates the action as to the

18

defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th

19

Cir. 1997). While Wilson and other cases involved unilateral dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)

20

rather than stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Ninth Circuit has held that the word

21

“action” in 41(a)(1) refers to “the entirety of claims against any single defendant,” rather than to

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

“the entire controversy against all the defendants.” Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 609 (9th Cir.
1993). At the time Pedrina was decided, the words “in the action” appeared after the words “all
parties who have appeared.” See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41 (West 1993).
In the alternative, if dismissal was not effective upon court order, since no other parties
oppose the motions, the Court hereby GRANTS the joint motions to dismiss pursuant to Rule
41(a)(2).
All claims between these parties have been dismissed with prejudice. Since no other

1
2
3
4
5

parties currently appear in the case, the Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 20, 2013
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

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