Velazquez v. Mummady, M.D.
ORDER granting 14 Stipulation of Dismissal (Signed by Judge Hilda G Tagle) Parties notified.(mserpa, 2)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
PRADYUMNA MUMMADY, M.D.,
May 01, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL NO. 2:16-CV-471
BE IT REMEMBERED that on May 1, 2017, the Court considered the
Parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. No. 14) in the above-captioned cause.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Velazquez (“Velazquez”) and Defendant Pradyumna Mummady
(“Mummady”) stipulate that “all matters in controversy as to all parties to this
cause have been compromised and settled, and as a result of said settlement all
parties have agreed that this cause should be dismissed with prejudice.” Dkt. No. 14
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 states, in part, that “the plaintiff may
dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal
signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “[A]
voluntary order of dismissal requested by both parties is effective upon filing and
does not require the approval of the court.” SmallBizPros, Inc. v. MacDonald, 618
F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ramming v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am.,
390 F.3d 366, 369 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004)).
The Stipulation of Dismissal is signed by counsel for Velazquez and counsel
for Mummady. Dkt. No. 14 at 2. In accordance with the Stipulation of Dismissal and
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), the Court ORDERS that the above-titled and numbered cause
be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE to the rights of the Plaintiff to reassert this
cause, or any claims related to or made a part thereof, and the costs of court herein
are taxed against the party incurring same.
The Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to close the case.
SIGNED this 1st day of May, 2017.
Senior United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?