Prunty et al v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC et al

Filing 35

ORDER Re: Joint Stipulation and Request for Dismissal Order [Doc. No. 34 ]. Given the joint stipulation and its basis under Rule 41, this case has been DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety and the action has been terminated with each party bearing its own attorneys' fees and costs. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 11/13/2020. (tcf)

Case 3:20-cv-00572-MMA-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.695 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN PRUNTY, et al.,

Case No. 20-cv-572-MMA (AGS)
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION
AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
ORDER

CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO
HOUSING LLC, and LPC PENDLETON
QUANTICO PM LP,

15
16

[Doc. No. 34]

Defendants.

17
18
19

The parties have filed a joint stipulation and request for a dismissal order of the

20

action with prejudice and with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. See

21

Doc. No. 34. Given the joint stipulation and its basis under Rule 41, this case has been

22

DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety and the action has been terminated with each

23

party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. See Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v.

24

Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a notice of voluntary dismissal

25

is filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and cannot

26

exercise discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal.”); see also

27

Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001)

28

(“The [filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice] itself closes the file.”); Acosta v. Lopez, No.
1
20-cv-572-MMA (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-00572-MMA-AGS Document 35 Filed 11/16/20 PageID.696 Page 2 of 2

1

1:18-cv-00625-AWI-SKO, 2019 WL 5536321, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) (“Once

2

the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in open

3

court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning

4

stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a

5

stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial

6

approval.”); Milton v. Lawton, No. 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW, 2009 WL 530909, at *1

7

(E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (same). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the

8

case.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated: November 13, 2020

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
20-cv-572-MMA (AGS)