Daigle v. City of Oceanside
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and a stipulation signed by all parties who appeared. The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice“Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 88.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action.” | agree with court The order recites that a stipulation of dismissal was signed by all parties who have appeared, which satisfies the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The parties explicitly requested dismissal with prejudice, and the court granted that specific request. The decision follows directly from the rule and the parties' agreement. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural mechanism (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) and confirms that the necessary stipulation was signed by all parties. It correctly notes that while federal law does not require a court order for such a dismissal to be effective, local rules require the filing of a joint motion, which was done. The court's grant of the motion and dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the parties' stipulation and the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRANDON LEE DAIGLE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-1180-BAS-WVG 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS 14 CITY OF OCEANSIDE, et al., [ECF No. 88] 15 Defendants.
17 Before this Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action with prejudice 18 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Joint Mot., ECF No. 88.) In support of their Joint Motion, 19 the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties who have appeared. (See 20 id. 2–3) 21 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 22 by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 23 moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 24 who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 25 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice 26 or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 27 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 28 1 ||dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 }}41(a)(1)(B). 3 Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants 4 ||seek voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Q0), 5 ||such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 6 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 7 || No. 88.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. The Clerk 8 Court is directed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 10 || DATED: March 21, 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 ‘orthe coo Electronic Case Ping Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court