HML Holdings, LLC v. Romeros LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint stipulation seeking to dismiss the action with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs. The court construed the stipulation as a joint motion and granted it, dismissing the case with prejudice and directing the clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Dismiss granted; action dismissed with prejudice“Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action. Each party shall bear its costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.” | agree with court The parties jointly stipulated to dismissal with prejudice. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The court correctly noted that while no court order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective under the federal rule, the local rules of the Southern District of California require such stipulations to be filed as joint motions. By granting the motion, the court complied with local procedure and gave effect to the parties' agreement. The decision follows directly from the rule and the parties' stipulation. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable federal rule for voluntary dismissal by stipulation. It accurately notes that while the federal rule makes the dismissal effective upon filing, the local rules of the Southern District of California require the stipulation to be filed as a joint motion. The court properly construed the filing as such a motion and granted it, respecting the parties' agreement to dismiss with prejudice. The reasoning is complete and legally sound for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HML HOLDINGS, LLC Case No. 21-cv-0380-BAS-BLM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 29)
14 TAMARA ROMERO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before this Court is the Stipulation of Dismissal jointly filed by the parties on March 18 7, 2022, wherein the parties indicate that they agree to dismiss this action with prejudice 19 and with each party bearing its own costs. (ECF No. 29.) 20 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its 21 action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer 22 or moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 23 parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San 24 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a 25 compliant notice or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is 26 required. Stone v. Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. 27 Feb. 16, 2007). A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, 1 |/as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 2 ||41(a)(1)(A)(ii), such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 3 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court construes the parties’ stipulation 4 a Joint Motion to dismiss this action and GRANTS that Joint Motion. (ECF No. 29.) 5 || Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action. Each party shall bear its 6 costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 8 || DATED: March 9, 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 coo Electronic Case Ping Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court