Mannkind Corporation v. Miramar Professional Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). The court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice, ordering each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees.
| 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 before (ECF No. 13.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.” | 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 parties explicitly requested dismissal with prejudice, overriding the default rule of dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(B). The court also correctly noted the local administrative requirement that such stipulations be filed as joint motions in this district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal rules and Ninth Circuit precedent. It accurately reflects the parties' agreement to dismiss with prejudice and complies with local administrative rules regarding the filing of joint motions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANNKIND CORPORATION, Case No. 22-cv-1686-BAS-MSB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 13) 14 MIRAMAR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; and MIRAMAR HEALTH 15 SUPPLY COOPERATIVE, INC., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion pursuant to Federal Rule (“Rule”) 19 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss with prejudice the instant action. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 13.) 20 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A, a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action by 21 (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved 22 for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 23 have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 24 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice or 25 stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and no court order is required. Stone v. 26 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 27 2017). A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. 28 P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules in this district require that where, as here, 1 litigants seek voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 2 ||41(a)(1)(A)Gi), such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 3 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion before 4 (ECF No. 13.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action, with each 5 || party to bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 A , 8 || DATED: April 27, 2023 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 ' See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedural Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California.