Marine Group Boat Works, LLC v. F /V Heather, a 1979 73.6 Foot Commercial Fishing Vessel

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-01303 · 2024-08-23 · Unknown

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

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:25Z · confidence high

The parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to a settlement agreement. The court granted the motion, dismissed the case without prejudice, and ordered the release of the defendant vessel from custody.

What the court decided	The model
Grant of the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action. “Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 11.)”	agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The order notes that while no court order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, the local rules (CivLR 7.2) require such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion, which the parties did. The dismissal is without prejudice, consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(B) absent a contrary stipulation.
Ordering the release of the Defendant Vessel F/V Heather G from custody. “Additionally, it is hereby ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal Service for the Southern District of California shall forthwith release the Defendant Vessel F/V Heather G from custody and shall inform the Substitute Custodian that this Court has ordered such release.”	agree with court The release of the vessel follows logically from the dismissal of the action and the reference to an 'executed settlement agreement.' In admiralty cases involving in rem claims against vessels, the dismissal of the claim typically necessitates the release of the vessel from the court's custody, often subject to the terms of the settlement (such as the provision of a bond or other security, though the order does not explicitly detail the security mechanism, it directs the release).

What the court decided

The model

Grant of the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action.

“Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 11.)”

agree with court
The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The order notes that while no court order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, the local rules (CivLR 7.2) require such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion, which the parties did. The dismissal is without prejudice, consistent with Rule 41(a)(1)(B) absent a contrary stipulation.

Ordering the release of the Defendant Vessel F/V Heather G from custody.

“Additionally, it is hereby ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal Service for the Southern District of California shall forthwith release the Defendant Vessel F/V Heather G from custody and shall inform the Substitute Custodian that this Court has ordered such release.”

agree with court
The release of the vessel follows logically from the dismissal of the action and the reference to an 'executed settlement agreement.' In admiralty cases involving in rem claims against vessels, the dismissal of the claim typically necessitates the release of the vessel from the court's custody, often subject to the terms of the settlement (such as the provision of a bond or other security, though the order does not explicitly detail the security mechanism, it directs the release).

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal rules and local rules. It accurately reflects the parties' joint motion and the legal basis for voluntary dismissal. The order to release the vessel is a standard consequence of the dismissal in an in rem admiralty action.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARINE GROUP BOAT WORKS, LLC, Case No. 24-cv-1303-BAS-DDL 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS AND ORDERING RELEASE OF VESSEL 14 F/V HEATHER, FROM CUSTODY 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 11) 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the above-captioned action. (ECF No. 20 11.) 21 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 22 by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 23 moved for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 24 who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 25 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice or 26 stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 27 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 28 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ||41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 2 || litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 3 ||41(a)(1)(A)(1), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. 4 Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 5 ||(ECF No. 11.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the action against 6 ||Defendant pursuant to the executed settlement agreement. Additionally, it is hereby 7 || ORDERED that the U.S. Marshal Service for the Southern District of California shall 8 || forthwith release the Defendant Vessel F/V Heather G from custody and shall inform the 9 || Substitute Custodian that this Court has ordered such release. The Clerk of Court is 10 || directed to close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 || DATED: August 23, 2024 (pil A (Asha 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.