Hightower v. County of San Diego
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
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 |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Dismiss granted; action dismissed with prejudice“The action, in its entirety, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The order recites that the motion satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and cites Wilson v. City of San Jose for the proposition that such a motion is effective upon filing. The dismissal with prejudice is the standard consequence of a voluntary dismissal under this rule when agreed upon by the parties. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the effectiveness of joint motions to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal by consent.
Opinion
I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} CLARENCE HIGHTOWER, et al., Case No.: 24-cv-1152-RSH-MSB 12 Plaintifls.) ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 || v. DISMISS 14 || COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al., [ECF No. 26] 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 On August 5, 2025, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 26. The 20 || Motion satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) and is 21 effective on filing. See Wilson vy. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The 22 action, in its entirety, is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party is to bear 23 own fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 5, 2025 Jekut C Lowe 26 57 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 28