Prunty v. Camp Pendleton & Quantico Housing LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint stipulation requesting dismissal of the action with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The court granted the request, dismissed the case with prejudice, and directed the Clerk to close the file.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the action with prejudice“Given the joint stipulation and its basis under Rule 41, this case has been DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety and the action has been terminated with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.” | agree with court The decision follows directly from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The parties' joint stipulation satisfies this requirement, and the court correctly noted that such a dismissal is effective automatically without judicial discretion regarding the terms. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural mechanism (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)) and cites binding Ninth Circuit authority confirming that the court lacks discretion to modify the terms of a voluntary dismissal once the notice is filed. The reasoning is concise and directly supports the outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RYAN PRUNTY, et al., Case No. 20-cv-572-MMA (AGS)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATION 13 v. AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL ORDER 14 CAMP PENDLETON & QUANTICO HOUSING LLC, and LPC PENDLETON 15 [Doc. No. 34] QUANTICO PM LP, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 The parties have filed a joint stipulation and request for a dismissal order of the 20 action with prejudice and with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. See 21 Doc. No. 34. Given the joint stipulation and its basis under Rule 41, this case has been 22 DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety and the action has been terminated with each 23 party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs. See Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. 24 Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a notice of voluntary dismissal 25 is filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and cannot 26 exercise discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal.”); see also 27 Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) 28 (“The [filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice] itself closes the file.”); Acosta v. Lopez, No. 1 || 1:18-cv-00625-AWI-SKO, 2019 WL 5536321, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) (“Once 2 ||the stipulation between the parties who have appeared 1s properly filed or made in open 3 ||court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning 4 ||stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) is clear that the entry of such a 5 ||stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial 6 ||approval.”); Milton v. Lawton, No. 1:04-cv-05556-A WI-WMW, 2009 WL 530909, at *1 7 ||\(E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (same). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to close the 8 ||case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 ||Dated: November 13, 2020 12 1 Leitgl (dill 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28