Integrity Medical Product Solutions, LLC v. Seroclinix Corporation, a Canadian Corporation; Seroclinix Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion by the parties to dismiss the third-party action against Honu Management Group, LLC, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the third-party defendant with prejudice, directing the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to dismiss the action against Third-Party Defendant Honu Management Group, LLC with prejudice.“Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Third-Party Defendant Honu Management Group, LLC.” | agree with court The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The order notes that the parties reached a settlement and that the local rules require such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion. The parties explicitly requested dismissal with prejudice (as indicated by the caption and the operative text), and Rule 41(a)(1)(B) permits dismissal without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Since the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, the court's decision to dismiss with prejudice is consistent with the rule and the parties' agreement. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural mechanism (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) stipulation) and the local rule requirement (CivLR 7.2) for filing such a motion. It correctly notes that dismissal is without prejudice unless stipulated otherwise, and since the parties' joint motion and the order itself specify dismissal with prejudice, the court's action is legally sound. The reliance on Wilson v. City of San Jose and Stone v. Woodford is appropriate for establishing the framework of voluntary dismissal, although Stone is a district court case and not binding precedent, it is used here for a procedural proposition consistent with the rule.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INTEGRITY MEDICAL PRODUCT Case No. 22-cv-00785-BAS-BLM SOLUTIONS, LLC, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION v. AGAINST THIRD-PARTY 14 DEFENDANT WITH PREJUDICE SEROCLINIX CORPORATION, a 15 (ECF No. 99) Canadian Corporation; SEROCLINIX 16 CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, 17 Defendants. 18 SEROCLINIX CORPORATION, a 19 Canadian Corporation; SEROCLINIX 20 CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, 21 Third-Party Plaintiffs, 22 v. 23 24 HONU MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,, 25 Third-Party Defendant. 26 27 28 1 Pending before the Court is Parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 2 || Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) to dismiss the above-captioned action. (ECF No. 99.) 3 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiffhas an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 4 ||by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 5 ||moved for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 6 || who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 7 ||F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice or 8 stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 9 || Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 10 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 |}/41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 12 || litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 13 }}41(a)(1)(A)(i), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. 14 Here, Parties have reached a settlement of disputes underlying the Second Amended 15 || Third-Party Complaint (ECF No. 98). (ECF No. 99.) Having considered the parties’ 16 ||}submission, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. (Ud.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES 17 || WITH PREJUDICE the action against Third-Party Defendant Honu Management Group, 18 |}LLC. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. The Court also DIRECTS 19 || the Clerk of Court to close the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 ||DATED: November 19, 2025 Calla Bahar ke 73 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28