Charman v. Trinity Solar Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint stipulation requesting that the case be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. The court granted the joint motion and dismissed the action with prejudice, directing the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) and dismissing the action with prejudice.“Thus, the Court GRANTS the joint motion (ECF No. 32). Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendant.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties. The court noted that while no order is strictly required for the dismissal to be effective, local rules require the stipulation to be filed as a joint motion. The court construed the filing as such and granted the motion, resulting in a dismissal with prejudice as requested by the parties. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal rule and Ninth Circuit authority regarding voluntary dismissal by stipulation. It correctly notes the local rule requirement to file as a joint motion and grants the motion accordingly.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THANE CHARMAN, individually and on Case No. 21-cv-01423-BAS-KSC behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 32) v. 14 TRINITY SOLAR, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 On May 24, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal indicating their 18 agreement that the case should be dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice. (ECF No. 32.) 19 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff has an absolute 20 right to voluntarily dismiss its action by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 21 who have appeared. See Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 Under this method of voluntary dismissal, dismissal is effective upon the filing of a 23 compliant notice or stipulation, and no court order is required. Stone v. Woodford, No. 24 CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). Nonetheless, the 25 local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal 26 27 28 1 || by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), such a stipulation must be 2 || filed as a joint motion.! 3 Thus, construing Plaintiffs joint stipulation (ECF No. 32) as a joint motion and 4 || having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the joint motion (ECF No. 32). 5 || Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendant. Each 6 || party shall bear its own costs and fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A 9 || DATED: May 26, 2022 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ||___— 28 forthe «ce Electronic case Png Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court ~_9.