Martinez v. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to dismiss filed by the parties in a civil action. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action with prejudice, ordering each party to bear its own fees and costs.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Dismiss granted“The Motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing.” | agree with court The order recites that the motion satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for dismissal by joint stipulation. The citation to Wilson v. City of San Jose supports the proposition that such a dismissal is effective upon filing. The decision follows directly from the procedural rule and the parties' joint action. |
Action dismissed with prejudice“The action, in its entirety, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” | agree with court Dismissal with prejudice is the standard consequence of a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) unless otherwise agreed, as it precludes refiling the same claim. The order explicitly states this outcome. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural mechanism (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) for a joint dismissal and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority (Wilson) to confirm the effective date of the dismissal. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order based on stipulation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREN J. MARTINEZ, an individual, Case No.: 23-cv-2077-RSH-DDL and in her capacity as Stockholder 12 Representative for BRAVO! BUILDING ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 SERVICES, INC., BRAVO! FACILITY DISMISS SERVICES, INC., and BRAVO 14 INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, INC. [ECF No. 28] 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS 18 SERVICES, LLC, 19 Defendant. 20 21 22 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 28. The Motion 23 satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing. See Wilson v. 24 City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The action, in its entirety, is hereby 25 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each Party is to bear its own fees and costs. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: October 4, 2024 fekut C E bows United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28