Scott Schutza v. GHC of Santee, LLC, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 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 Joint Motion to Dismiss Entire Action 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The parties jointly moved for dismissal, and the court noted the local rule requirement (CivLR 7.2) that such stipulations be filed as a joint motion. The dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the parties' request and the rule's provision that dismissal is without prejudice unless otherwise stipulated. The court's reliance on Wilson v. City of San Jose and Stone v. Woodford is appropriate for the procedural context. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable federal rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)), cites supporting Ninth Circuit authority (Wilson), and adheres to the local rule requirement (CivLR 7.2) for filing a joint motion. The result (dismissal with prejudice) follows directly from the parties' joint stipulation and the rule's default provision that dismissal is without prejudice unless otherwise stipulated. The court's reasoning is concise but complete for this type of procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SCOTT SCHUTZA, Case No. 26-cv-00311-BAS-VET 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS ENTIRE ACTION WITH PREJUDICE 14 GHC OF SANTEE, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 14) 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. 14.) 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. 14.) 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: August 10, 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_