Kevin Rutz v. Newrez, LLC and The Bank of New York Melon
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a joint motion to dismiss filed by the plaintiff and defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court granted the joint motion, dismissing the action with prejudice, and vacated the defendants' pending motion to dismiss as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) and dismissing the 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 court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The order notes that the local rules (CivLR 7.2) require such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion, which the parties did. The dismissal is with prejudice, which is consistent with the parties' joint request and the general rule that dismissal is without prejudice unless stipulated otherwise (Rule 41(a)(1)(B)). The court's reliance on Wilson v. City of San Jose and Stone v. Woodford is appropriate for the proposition that no court order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, though the court issued one to close the case. |
Vacating Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16) as moot.“Accordingly, the Court also VACATES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 16.)” | agree with court Once the action is dismissed, any pending motions to dismiss the action are rendered moot. This is a standard procedural consequence. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)), the local rule requirement (CivLR 7.2), and the effect of the dismissal (with prejudice, as stipulated). The citations are appropriate for the propositions advanced. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a routine voluntary dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEVIN RUTZ, Case No. 25-cv-02671-BAS-DDL Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER: 13 (1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 27); 14 NEWREZ, LLC and THE BANK OF (2) VACATING AS MOOT DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 15 NEW YORK MELON, DISMISS (ECF No. 16) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 27) and Defendants 19 Newrez, LLC and The Bank of New York Melon’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 16). 20 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 21 by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 22 moved for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 23 who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 24 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice or 25 stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 26 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 27 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 28 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 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 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1). 4 ||(ECF No. 27.) Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the joint 5 |}motion. (d.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action. 6 || Accordingly, the Court also VACATES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. 7 (ECF No. 16.) Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. The Court also 8 || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ~ 11 || DATED: July 8, 2026 yatta Bihar 2 H n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28