Hot In Here, Inc. v. Gary Maurice “Joyner” Lucas Jr.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case 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 of Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss Case with Prejudice“Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. (Id.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule requiring a joint motion for stipulated dismissal and the federal rule allowing dismissal with prejudice by stipulation. The parties' joint motion satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and CivLR 7.2. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural mechanism for voluntary dismissal by stipulation, cites the relevant federal rule and local rule, and grants the motion as requested by the parties. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order based on a joint stipulation.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOT IN HERE, INC., Case No. 25-cv-02999-BAS-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 13 v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS CASE WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 11) 14 GARY MAURICE “JOYNER” LUCAS JR., 15 Defendant. 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. 11.) 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. 11.) 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 attorney’s fees. The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 ~ 9 || DATED: May 21, 2026 (yatta Bahar □□ 10 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_