David Marvin Cline v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc et. al
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Local Civil Rule 7.2. The court granted the motion, dismissed the action with prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant joint motion to dismiss entire action with prejudice“Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. (/d.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action.” | agree with court The order correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The parties jointly moved to dismiss, satisfying the requirement for a stipulation. The court correctly notes that dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise (Rule 41(a)(1)(B)); here, the parties explicitly sought dismissal with prejudice in their joint motion, and the court granted that specific request. The reference to Local Civil Rule 7.2 regarding the form of the filing (joint motion) is procedurally accurate for the Southern District of California. The decision follows directly from the text of the rule and the parties' agreement. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable federal rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) and the local rule (CivLR 7.2) governing the form of the motion. It correctly notes the default rule regarding prejudice (without prejudice) and acknowledges that the parties' stipulation controls the outcome (with prejudice). The citation to *Wilson* and *Stone* provides sufficient context, although *Stone* is a district court case and not binding precedent, it is used illustratively for the procedural mechanism. The reasoning is concise and directly answers the motion based on the parties' agreement.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID MARVIN CLINE, Case No. 25-cv-03509-BAS-BJW 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 14 HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC et. al, (ECF No. 17) 15 Defendants.
16 17 Pending before the Court is Parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the above-captioned action. (ECF No. 17.) 19 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 20 by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 21 moved for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 22 who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 23 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice or 24 stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 25 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 26 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 28 1 || litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 2 41(a)(1)(A)(a1), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. 3 Here, Parties jointly move to dismiss the present action. (ECF No. 17.) Having 4 ||considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. (/d.) Thus, the 5 ||Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action. Each party shall bear its own costs 6 ||and attorney’s fees, unless otherwise agreed in writing. The Court also DIRECTS the 7 || Clerk of Court to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ~ 10 || DATED: March 26, 2026 (yi. (Doha 1 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_