Ramirez v. Zimmerman
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 198) granted“Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 198.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The order notes that the parties filed a signed stipulation and that the local rules require such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion, which they did. The dismissal is with prejudice as stipulated by the parties. |
Action dismissed with prejudice“Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action.” | agree with court Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that a dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Here, the parties jointly moved to dismiss 'with prejudice,' and the court honored that stipulation. This is a standard and correct application of the rule. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It identifies the proper rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)), confirms that the stipulation was signed by all parties who appeared, notes the local rule requirement for a joint motion, and grants the dismissal with prejudice as requested by the parties. The citation to *Wilson* and *Stone* is appropriate context, though *Stone* is an unpublished district court order and *Wilson* is a standard citation for the right to dismiss. The reasoning is 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 JAIRO CERVANTES, et al., Case No. 17-cv-1230-BAS-AHG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 198)
14 SHELLEY ZIMMERMAN, 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 this action with prejudice. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 198.) In support 19 of their Joint Motion, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties who 20 have appeared. (See id.) 21 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its 22 action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer 23 or moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 24 parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San 25 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a 26 compliant notice or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is 27 required. Stone v. Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. 28 Feb. 16, 2007). A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 1 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, 2 ||as here, litigants seck voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 3 ||41(a)(1)(A)(ii), such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 4 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 5 || No. 198.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action. Each party shall 6 || bear its own costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 8 || DATED: March 8, 2022 Lin A (Ayphan 6 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘orthe Electronic □□ re jominustrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court