Fernando Gastelum v. Mandira Investments, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Local Civil Rule 7.2. The court granted the motion, dismissing the action with prejudice and directing the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss“Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the joint motion. (Id.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendants.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The parties jointly filed the motion, satisfying the requirement. The court noted that dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise; here, the order explicitly dismisses with prejudice, implying the parties agreed to this outcome in their joint motion (as is standard for such stipulations to prevent refiling). The citation to Local Civil Rule 7.2 correctly identifies the procedural requirement for filing such a stipulation as a joint motion in this district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal and local rules. It accurately reflects the mechanism for voluntary dismissal by stipulation. The decision to dismiss with prejudice is consistent with the parties' joint request (implied by the specific order language overriding the default 'without prejudice' rule).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO GASTELUM, Case No. 25-cv-03309-BAS-BJW 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 17)
14 MANDIRA INVESTMENTS, LLC, 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. 17.) 19 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action by 20 (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved 21 for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 22 appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 23 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice or stipulation, as 24 described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. Woodford, No. CIV- 25 F-05-845 AWI DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A dismissal is without 26 prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, the 27 local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal 28 1 || pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1), the stipulation of dismissal 2 || must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. 3 Here, Parties jointly filed 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 against Defendants. Each party shall 6 || bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. The Court also DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to 7 || close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ~ 10 || DATED: May 22, 2026 (yi. (Duhark 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_