Brantley v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER CLOSING CASE. the Parties stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was effective on September 14, 2022 when filed, and no order from this Court is required. Signed by District Judge Katherine A. Crytzer on 9/16/22. (ADA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
MICHAEL DARNEL BRANTLEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION
SERVICES, LLC,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.:

3:22-CV-168-KAC-JEM

ORDER CLOSING CASE
Before the Court is the Parties’ “Joint Motion to Dismiss Defendant Equifax Information
Services, LLC with Prejudice” [Doc. 27]. On September 14, 2022, the Parties filed a joint motion
signed by all Parties remaining in this case to “dismiss[] [] all claims against” Defendant Equifax
“with prejudice” “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, 41” “[i]n light of the settlement”
between them [Id. at 1].
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide two distinct procedures for dismissal that are
relevant here. First, under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a
court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” “Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(ii) orders, generally speaking are ‘self-executing’ and do ‘not require judicial
approval.’” Exact Software N. Am., Inc. v. DeMoisey, 718 F.3d 535, 540 (6th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Green v. Nevers, 111 F.3d 1295, 1301 (6th Cir. 1997)). Second, under Rule 41(a)(2), “[e]xcept
as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court
order, on terms that the court considers proper.”
Here, the Parties have satisfied the requirements for dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
[See Doc. 27]. As such, the Parties’ stipulation of dismissal with prejudice was effective on

Case 3:22-cv-00168-KAC-JEM Document 28 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 100

September 14, 2022 when filed, and no order from this Court is required. See Exact Software N.
Am., Inc., 718 F.3d at 540; see also Dillon-Barber v. Regents of the Univ. of Mich., 51 F. App’x
946, 951 (6th Cir. 2002). Because there are no issues remaining in this case, the Court DIRECTS
the Clerk of Court to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Katherine A. Crytzer
KATHERINE A. CRYTZER
United States District Judge

2

Case 3:22-cv-00168-KAC-JEM Document 28 Filed 09/16/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 101