Qualcomm Incorporated v. Shvil
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the interpleader 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.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant the Joint Motion to Dismiss and dismiss the action with prejudice.“The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Joint Motion and DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE this action.” | agree with court The order correctly applies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows for voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The order confirms that the parties filed a compliant stipulation and followed the local rule requiring such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion. The dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the parties' agreement and the procedural requirements. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable federal rule for voluntary dismissal by stipulation, acknowledges the local rule requirement for filing such stipulations as a joint motion, and confirms that the parties complied with both. The result follows directly from the law and the parties' agreement.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, a Case No. 22-cv-1360-BAS-MSB Delaware Corporation; SECURIAN 12 FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Delaware ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 Corporation; MINNESSOTA LIFE MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF NO. 17) INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota 14 Corporation, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 STELLA SHVIL, Administer and Personal 18 Representative of the Estate of Ali Ebrazeh; FATEMEH EBRAZEH, an 19 individual 20 Defendants. 21 22 Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss with prejudice the instant 23 interpleader action. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 17.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 24 41(a)(1)(A) provides a plaintiff with the absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 25 and with two methods for doing so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). The plaintiff may file 26 either a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or a motion 27 for summary judgment, see id. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 28 parties who have appeared, see id. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 1 || 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), dismissal is effective once a 2 ||compliant notice or stipulation is filed; no further order of the court is necessary. See 3 || Stone v. Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-0845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766, at *1 (E.D. Cal. 4 || Feb. 16, 2007). 5 Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, the 6 || plaintiff opts to file a stipulation as the device for voluntary dismissal, pursuant to Rule 7 )(A)Gi), it must be filed as a joint motion. See Electronic Case Filing 8 || Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the 9 || Southern District of California. 10 In accordance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1), the parties filed a compliant stipulation, 11 agreeing to dismissal of the case, in its entirety, with prejudice. And in accordance with 12 || the civil local rules of this district, the parties filed that stipulation as a joint motion. (See 13 || ECF No. 17.) The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Joint Motion and DISMISSES WITH 14 || PREJUDICE this action. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the matter. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 /\ yf 17 || DATED: June 6, 2023 ( itl A (Liphan 6 ig United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28