Mott et al v. Narconon Fresh Start et al

Filing 99

Minute Order. The case was dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the parties' Stipulated Dismissal 98 . No order of dismissal is necessary. Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 07/15/15. (jhawk, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 14-cv-01293-PAB-KMT
BRYAN MOTT, a New York citizen, and
NIKKI MOTT, a New York citizen,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NARCONON FRESH START, d/b/a A Life Worth Saving, Inc.,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
_____________________________________________________________________
This matter is before the Court on the Stipulated Dismissal of Defendant
Narconon Fresh Start With Prejudice [Docket No. 98]. The parties request that the
Court enter an order dismissing this action with prejudice.
The stipulation invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which
provides that the “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: . . . a
stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” (emphasis added).
The stipulation was not signed “by all parties who have appeared” (Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(1)(A)(ii); see Anderson-Tully Co. v. Federal Ins. Co., 347 F. App’x 171, 176 (6th
Cir. 2009) (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “all parties who have appeared”
includes both current and former parties)) and therefore does not, by itself, serve to
dismiss this action. However, former defendants Association for Better Living and
Education International and Narconon International and def endant Narconon Fresh
Start are represented by the same counsel, and there is no reason to suspect that the
former defendants would object to the stipulation. As a result, the Court f inds that
dismissal is appropriate.
Furthermore, “[u]nless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is
without prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Here, however, the
parties have agreed to the dismissal of this action with prejudice. Therefore, the case
was dismissed with prejudice as of the entry of the parties’ Stipulated Dismissal [Docket
No. 98]. No order of dismissal is necessary.
DATED July 15, 2015.