Ross v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:25-cv-00167 · 2025-07-14 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Robert Steven Huie (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:59Z · confidence high

The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.

What the court decided	The model
Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss “The joint motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing.”	agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. The order states that the motion satisfies these requirements, making the dismissal effective upon filing. The citation to Wilson v. City of San Jose supports the proposition that such a dismissal is effective on filing.
Dismissal with Prejudice “The action, in its entirety, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”	agree with court A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is typically without prejudice unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders otherwise. However, the order explicitly states the dismissal is 'with prejudice.' In the context of a joint motion, parties often stipulate to dismissal with prejudice to prevent refiling. The court's order reflects this stipulation. While the order does not explicitly quote the stipulation regarding prejudice, it is standard practice for joint motions to specify this, and the court's grant of the motion implies acceptance of the terms presented.

What the court decided

The model

Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss

“The joint motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. The order states that the motion satisfies these requirements, making the dismissal effective upon filing. The citation to Wilson v. City of San Jose supports the proposition that such a dismissal is effective on filing.

Dismissal with Prejudice

“The action, in its entirety, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

agree with court
A dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is typically without prejudice unless the parties agree otherwise or the court orders otherwise. However, the order explicitly states the dismissal is 'with prejudice.' In the context of a joint motion, parties often stipulate to dismissal with prejudice to prevent refiling. The court's order reflects this stipulation. While the order does not explicitly quote the stipulation regarding prejudice, it is standard practice for joint motions to specify this, and the court's grant of the motion implies acceptance of the terms presented.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It cites the appropriate rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) and a relevant Ninth Circuit case (Wilson) to support the effectiveness of the dismissal. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine joint dismissal order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} ASHLEY ROSS, Case No.: 25-cv-167-RSH-KSC 1 Plants | ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 |] V. MOTION FOR DISMISSAL 14 |} HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 15 Defendants. [ECF No. 17] 16 17 18 19 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 17. The joint 20 || motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing. See 21 || Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The action, in its entirety, is 22 hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 23 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 25 ||Dated: July 14, 2025 febut ‘ Howe Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 27 28