Sanchez Hernandez v. Aramark Campus, LLC

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-00362 · 2024-07-01 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:29Z · confidence high

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered the case closed.

What the court decided	The model
Granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice “Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 17.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. (/d.)”	agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The parties explicitly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, overriding the default rule of dismissal without prejudice. The court also correctly noted that while no order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, the local rules require a joint motion format, which was followed.
Ordering waiver of appeal rights, allocation of fees, and no prevailing party status “Further, the Court ORDERS that the parties have each waived any and all rights to appeal, that each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with as a result of this action, and that no party shall be deemed the prevailing party.”	disagree with court · procedure The court incorporated the terms of the parties' stipulation regarding fees and prevailing party status. However, the order stating that parties 'have each waived any and all rights to appeal' is legally questionable. Parties cannot contractually waive the right to appeal a final judgment in a federal civil case; such waivers are generally unenforceable as against public policy. The court should have only noted the parties' agreement regarding fees and costs, not ordered a waiver of appellate rights.

What the court decided

The model

Granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice

“Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 17.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. (/d.)”

agree with court
The court correctly applied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The parties explicitly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, overriding the default rule of dismissal without prejudice. The court also correctly noted that while no order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, the local rules require a joint motion format, which was followed.

Ordering waiver of appeal rights, allocation of fees, and no prevailing party status

“Further, the Court ORDERS that the parties have each waived any and all rights to appeal, that each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with as a result of this action, and that no party shall be deemed the prevailing party.”

disagree with court · procedure
The court incorporated the terms of the parties' stipulation regarding fees and prevailing party status. However, the order stating that parties 'have each waived any and all rights to appeal' is legally questionable. Parties cannot contractually waive the right to appeal a final judgment in a federal civil case; such waivers are generally unenforceable as against public policy. The court should have only noted the parties' agreement regarding fees and costs, not ordered a waiver of appellate rights.

The order itself: questionable — The court correctly analyzed the procedural requirements for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 and local rules. However, the order contains a significant legal error by stating that the parties 'waived any and all rights to appeal.' Federal courts do not have the authority to order a waiver of the right to appeal, as this right is statutory and cannot be waived by private agreement in this manner. The rest of the reasoning is sound.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LESLIE LISBETH SANCHEZ Case No. 24-cv-0362-BAS-KSC HERNANDEZ, an individual, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 17) v. 14 ARAMARK CAMPUS, LLC, a Delaware 15 limited liability company; and DOES 1 16 through 100, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Before this Court is the parties’ request to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant 20 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41. (ECF No. 17.) Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a 21 plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action by (1) filing a notice of 22 voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary 23 judgment, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 24 parties who have appeared, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 25 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is effective 26 upon the filing of a compliant notice or stipulation. No court order is required. See Stone 27 v. Woodford, CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). 28 Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek 1 || voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1), such a 2 ||stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 3 A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. See Fed. R. 4 ||Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, the parties have stipulated otherwise. (See ECF No. 17 5 ||(stipulating to dismissal with prejudice).) 6 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 7 ||No. 17.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. (/d.) 8 || Further, the Court ORDERS that the parties have each waived any and all rights to appeal, 9 || that each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with 10 as a result of this action, and that no party shall be deemed the prevailing party. The 11 Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 /\ 14 || DATED: July 1, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ——_—— 28 See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 4.