By The Glass, LLC v. Franmara, Inc.
Filing
62
Order denying, without prejudice, 61 Stipulated Dismissal of Entire Action. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 5/2/2014.(blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2014)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7
BY THE GLASS, LLC,
Case No. 13-cv-00879-BLF
Plaintiff,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
FRANMARA, INC., BARPARTS, INC.,
THE BRAVA GROUP LLC d/b/a/ BRAVA
MARKETING PROMOTIONS, JH
STUDIOS, INC., SHASTA PRINTING,
INC., and QUICK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Re: Dkt. No. 61
Defendants.
13
14
On April 29, 2014, Plaintiff By The Glass, LLC/Govino, LLD and Defendant Franmara,
15
Inc. submitted a “Stipulated Dismissal of Entire Action With Prejudice.” Dkt. No. 61. Because
16
the stipulation does not comply with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Court
17
declines to endorse the stipulation of dismissal.
Plaintiff’s initial Complaint, filed February 27, 2013, identified Franmara as the sole
18
19
named Defendant. Dkt. No. 1. On October 18, 2013, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
20
(“FAC”) adding BarParts, Inc., The Brava Group LLC d/b/a Brava Marketing Promotions, JH
21
Studios, Inc., Shasta Printing, Inc., and Quick Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Sage as additional
22
defendants. Dkt. No. 37. All Defendants answered the FAC on November 11, 2013, thereby
23
appearing in this action. Dkt. No. 39.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action
24
25
subject to certain restrictions. Where a plaintiff seeks to dismiss an opposing party who has
26
already answered or appeared in the case, the voluntary dismissal must be made by stipulation
27
“signed by all parties who have appeared” or by noticed motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii),
28
(B).
1
Here, Plaintiff and Franmara have submitted a stipulation of dismissal “[p]ursuant to
2
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a)(1)” that would dismiss, with prejudice, Plaintiff’s
3
claims against all named Defendants, as well as the counterclaims of all Defendants against
4
Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 61. However, the stipulation is only signed by counsel for Plaintiff and
5
counsel for Franmara. Id. There is no evidence that the other named Defendants have signed on
6
to this stipulation of dismissal. If Plaintiff seeks to dismiss its claims against all Defendants—and
7
if all of the Defendants seek to dismiss their counterclaims against Plaintiff—the parties must file
8
a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties in this action who have appeared.
Because Plaintiff and Franmara’s stipulation of dismissal is not signed by all parties who
10
have appeared, the Court cannot endorse said dismissal. The requested dismissal is accordingly
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
9
DENIED, without prejudice, and with leave to re-file a stipulation that complies with the Federal
12
Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable standing orders of the Court.
13
14
15
16
17
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 2, 2014
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?