Emert v. Competitor Group, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved 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 ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss“Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 20.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The parties jointly moved for dismissal with prejudice, and the court granted the request. The decision follows directly from the rule and the parties' agreement. |
Dismissal of Action with Prejudice“Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendants.” | agree with court Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Here, the parties jointly moved to dismiss 'with prejudice,' and the court honored that stipulation. The dismissal with prejudice is legally sound based on the parties' agreement. |
Allocation of Costs and Fees“Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.” | agree with court The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees. This is a standard equitable disposition in voluntary dismissals where no specific agreement on costs is mentioned in the order, and it does not violate any rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) and cites appropriate authority (Wilson v. City of San Jose) to support the proposition that a stipulation signed by all parties allows for voluntary dismissal. It correctly notes that dismissal is without prejudice unless stipulated otherwise, and since the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, the court's order is legally sound. The order is concise and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FALCO ERMERT., Case No. 21-cv-1796-BAS-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 20)
14 COMPETITOR GROUP, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 The parties have jointly moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 18 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in this action with prejudice (see Compl., ECF 19 No. 1). (Joint Mot., ECF No. 20.) The Joint Motion is signed by both parties. 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 compliant notice 25 or 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 1 ||41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 2 || litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i1), such a stipulation must be 3 || filed as a joint motion.! 4 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 5 ||No. 20.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against 6 Defendants. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is directed 7 || to close the case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || DATED: February 2, 2022 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sorthe □□ Electronic Case Ping Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court