Cross v. Gary City of et al

Filing 46

OPINION AND ORDER: The Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss filed by City of Gary, 44 , is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff and Defendant City of Gary are ORDERED to make their next filing in this matter on or before 12/16/2019. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/2/2019. (lhc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
HAMMOND DIVISION
PRINCESS CROSS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY OF GARY and
OFFICER HUDSON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-389-TLS

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal [ECF No. 44] filed by
the Plaintiff, Princess Cross, and Defendant, the City of Gary. The Parties submitted this filing
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 but did not specify which provision of Rule 41 they
intend to rely on. If presented appropriately, a joint motion to dismiss the case could be granted
under Rule 41(a)(2). See Gatling v. Nickel, 275 F.R.D. 495 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (construing Rule
41(a)(2) to grant Courts the authority to dismiss individual claims at the request of both parties).
But this filing is styled as a “stipulation.” And the only provision of Rule 41 that refers to a
“stipulation” is 41(a)(1), which is not applicable here because the Parties seek only to dismiss the
claims against Defendant City of Gary and not the entire action. See Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe
Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that Rule 41(a)(1) speaks in terms of dismissing
an action, not a claim); see also Gatling, 275 F.R.D. at 496.
The Joint Stipulation for Dismissal [ECF No. 44] is therefore DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff and Defendant City of Gary are ORDERED to make their next filing
in this matter on or before December 16, 2019.
SO ORDERED on December 2, 2019.
s/ Theresa L. Springmann

CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2