Civility Experts Worldwide v. Molly Manners, LLC

Filing 124

MINUTE ORDER denying 112 Plaintiff's Motion to Execute Docket Numbers 65, 66, 67, 68, and 69, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/16/2015.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-00521-WJM-MJW
CIVILITY EXPERTS WORLDWIDE,
Plaintiff,
v.
MOLLY MANNERS, LLC,
APRIL ROLLINS,
LOYCE RIGGANS,
ALISON SMITH,
FELICIA KNOWLES,
SHANNON COMBS, and
MONIKA VIRTA-GUPTA,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Execute Docket Numbers 65, 66,
67, 68, and 69 (Docket No. 112) is DENIED, for the following reasons.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), a stipulated dismissal of
claims is operative without a court order. Accordingly, on July 20, 2015, in response to
the stipulations filed in Dockets No. 65 through 69, the Clerk of Court terminated
Defendants Tanya Maclin, Pia Richardson, Lisa Cozzocrea, Elizabeth Hazel, and Bree
Stillman as Defendants on the CM/ECF docket. The stipulations themselves effected
the dismissals, and the Clerk has updated the docket sheet to reflect those dismissals.
The same result occurred as to then-Defendants Alicia Leverette and Cathy Hulshof,
who were dismissed from this case by Dockets No. 88 and 102 by operation of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A), and who were terminated as Defendants on the
CM/ECF docket on August 20, 2015, and August 28, 2015, respectively.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(B), the stipulations operate as
dismissals with prejudice because the stipulations so state.
The stipulations also purport to dismiss all counterclaims that could have been
brought by these Defendants against Plaintiff. The proposed orders that Plaintiff now
asks the Court to execute would enter judgment dismissing all such counterclaims with
prejudice, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The Court is unaware of any

authority allowing it to enter judgment on claims that have not been asserted. To the
extent Plaintiff wishes to protect itself against such claims, it will have to rely on res
judicata and the signed settlement agreements, rather than an express order of this
Court.
Date: September 16, 2015