Brooke v. Wave Crest Resorts III LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. The court dismissed the action with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys' fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action with prejudice“Pursuant to the stipulation and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this action has been DISMISSED with prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to the parties' stipulation. The cited authorities confirm that a stipulated dismissal is effective automatically and that the court lacks discretion to alter the terms agreed upon by the parties, including the allocation of costs and fees. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on appropriate Ninth Circuit authority to confirm that the court must enforce the terms of the stipulated dismissal without modification. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural dismissal order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THERESA BROOKE, Case No. 20-cv-1218-MMA (AGS)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DISMISSAL 13 v. [Doc. No. 6] 14 WAVE CREST RESORTS III LLC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 The parties have filed a “Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice” agreeing to 20 dismissal of this action. See Doc. No. 6. Pursuant to the stipulation and Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), this action has been DISMISSED with prejudice and 22 with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. See Commercial Space Mgmt. 23 Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a notice of voluntary 24 dismissal is filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and 25 cannot exercise discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal.”); see 26 also Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 (quoting Pedrina v. Chun, 987 F.2d 608, 610 (9th Cir. 1993)) (“The [filing of a Rule 28 41(a)(1)(i) notice] itself closes the file.”); Acosta v. Lopez, No. 1:18-cv-00625-AWI- 1 || SKO, 2019 WL 5536321, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) (“Once the stipulation between 2 parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in open court, no order of the 3 court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning stipulated dismissals 4 ||under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) 1s clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is 5 || effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.”); Milton v. Lawton, No. 6 || 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW, 2009 WL 530909, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (same). 7 || The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to terminate this action in its entirety. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || Dated: September 9, 2020 1]
13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28