Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Qualcomm Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed joint motions to voluntarily dismiss four consolidated patent cases pursuant to a global resolution. The court granted the motions and dismissed the proceedings with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the parties' joint motions to dismiss the four cases with prejudice.“Having considered the parties’ requests, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motions and DISMISSSES WITH PREJUDICE the four above-captioned proceedings.” | 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 order notes that while dismissal is typically without prejudice, the parties' stipulation (implied by the 'global resolution' and the specific request for dismissal with prejudice in the context of a settlement) allows for dismissal with prejudice. The court also correctly noted that local rules require such stipulations to be filed as joint motions. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable federal rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) for voluntary dismissal by stipulation. It acknowledges the local rule requirement to file such stipulations as joint motions. The decision to dismiss with prejudice is consistent with the parties' agreement (global resolution) and the rule that dismissal is without prejudice unless stipulated otherwise. The citation to Wilson v. City of San Jose is appropriate for the Ninth Circuit context.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Case No. 22-cv-0595-BAS-KSC Case No. 22-cv-1266-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 22-cv-1526-BAS-KSC 13 v. Case No. 22-cv-1796-BAS-KSC 14 QUALCOMM INC., ORDER GRANTING JOINT 15 Defendant. MOTIONS TO DISMISS 17 Before the Court are the parties’ joint motions to dismiss the above-captioned 18 proceedings in light of a global resolution they have reached. (Case No. 22-cv-0595, ECF 19 No. 60; Case No. 22-cv-1266, ECF No. 23; Case No. 22-cv-1526, ECF No. 20; Case No. 20 22-cv-1796, ECF No. 22 (collectively, “Joint Motions”).) 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)(i), (ii); see also Wilson v. City of 25 San 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 1 16, 2007). A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. 2 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 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)(i), 5 ||such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.' In accordance with this district’s local 6 || civil rules, the parties filed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1)-compliant stipulations in all four above- 7 || captioned cases, which they styled as a Joint Motions 8 Having considered the parties’ requests, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motions and 9 || DISMISSSES WITH PREJUDICE the four above-captioned proceedings. The parties 10 bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. / . , 12 ||DATED: February 6, 2023 (Yin A (Lyohaa é 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ' See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California.