Brandon v. City of San Diego

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-01164 · 2025-02-19 · Unknown

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

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:12Z · confidence high

The parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the joint motion, dismissed the action with prejudice, and denied the pending motion to dismiss as moot.

What the court decided	The model
Grant the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice. “Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 6.)”	agree with court The order recites that the parties filed a joint motion stipulating to dismissal with prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The court correctly notes that while no court order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, local rules require the stipulation to be filed as a joint motion. Since the parties complied with the local rule and explicitly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice (overriding the default rule of dismissal without prejudice), the court's decision to grant the motion and dismiss the case with prejudice follows directly from the text of the rule and the parties' agreement.
Deny the pending motion to dismiss as moot. “Thus, the Court DENIES the pending Motion to Dismiss as moot (ECF No. 3)”	agree with court Once the action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction to rule on any pending motions, including the defendant's motion to dismiss. Therefore, denying the motion as moot is the procedurally correct outcome.

What the court decided

The model

Grant the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice.

“Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 6.)”

agree with court
The order recites that the parties filed a joint motion stipulating to dismissal with prejudice. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The court correctly notes that while no court order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, local rules require the stipulation to be filed as a joint motion. Since the parties complied with the local rule and explicitly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice (overriding the default rule of dismissal without prejudice), the court's decision to grant the motion and dismiss the case with prejudice follows directly from the text of the rule and the parties' agreement.

Deny the pending motion to dismiss as moot.

“Thus, the Court DENIES the pending Motion to Dismiss as moot (ECF No. 3)”

agree with court
Once the action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction to rule on any pending motions, including the defendant's motion to dismiss. Therefore, denying the motion as moot is the procedurally correct outcome.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)), notes the local procedural requirement for a joint motion, and applies the parties' stipulation to determine the prejudice status of the dismissal. The reasoning is concise and legally accurate for a procedural dismissal.

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 CARL BRANDON, JR.; Case No. 24-cv-1164-BAS-KSC ANTOINETTE RODRIGUEZ; 12 ERIC JOHNSON; THEODORE ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 KING; and DAEJORE JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS AND WILLIAMSON, DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS 14 Plaintiffs, AS MOOT 15 (ECF Nos. 3, 6) v. 16 CITY OF SAN DIEGO, and 17 DOES 1-100, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Before this Court is the parties’ request to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant 21 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41. (Joint Motion, ECF No. 6.) Under Rule 22 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss their action by (1) filing 23 a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for 24 summary judgment, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed 25 by all parties who have appeared, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Wilson v. City of San 26 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is 27 effective upon the filing of a compliant notice or stipulation. No court order is required. 28 See Stone v. Woodford, CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 1 2007). Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants 2 ||seek voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ai), 3 a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 4 A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. See Fed. R. 5 ||Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, the parties have stipulated otherwise. (See Joint Motion 6 || (stipulating to dismissal with prejudice).) 7 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 8 || No. 6.) Thus, the Court DENIES the pending Motion to Dismiss as moot (ECF No. 3), and 9 || DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. The Clerk of Court is directed to 10 || close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 || DATED: February 19, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 14 H@¢n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 15 United States District Court 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. ~_9.