Sara Hazlewood v. Board of Trustees of the California State University et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action as to four specific defendants. The court granted the motion, dismissing the SDSU Defendants with prejudice and allowing the case to proceed against the remaining defendant, the City of San Diego.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Dismiss as to SDSU Defendants granted“The SDSU Defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this action 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), which governs voluntary dismissal by joint stipulation. Under this rule, a dismissal by stipulation is effective upon filing and is generally with prejudice unless otherwise stated. The court's reliance on Wilson v. City of San Jose supports the procedural validity of the dismissal. The decision follows directly from the cited rule and the parties' joint filing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) for a joint stipulation to dismiss and cites controlling Ninth Circuit authority (Wilson) to support the effectiveness of the dismissal upon filing. The result (dismissal with prejudice) is the standard consequence of a voluntary dismissal under this rule unless the parties agree otherwise, which the order does not indicate. There are no gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SARA HAZLEWOOD, Case No.: 25-cv-1378-RSH-GC 12 ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO Plaintiff, 13 DISMISS v. 14 [ECF No. 58] BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 15 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 On April 13, 2026, the Parties filed a Joint Motion to dismiss the action only as to 20 defendants the Board of Trustees of the California State University, Mildred Garcia, Adela 21 de la Torre, and Aztec Shops Ltd. (collectively, the “SDSU Defendants”). ECF No. 58. 22 The Motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing. See 23 Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 1 The SDSU Defendants are hereby DISMISSED from this action with prejudice. The 2 action shall proceed against defendant City of San Diego. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: April 15, 2026 fokeut How 5 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28