Friesland Fishing Company LLC v. Maughan

District Court, S.D. California · 3:22-cv-01797 · 2023-09-26 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:49Z · confidence high

The parties filed a joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Local Civil Rule 7.2. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action against the defendant without prejudice.

What the court decided	The model
Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice “Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the action against Defendant.”	agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The court also correctly noted that under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), such a dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. The order recites that the parties filed a joint motion as required by Local Civil Rule 7.2. The decision follows directly from the rule and the parties' agreement.

What the court decided

The model

Grant of Joint Motion to Dismiss Action Without Prejudice

“Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the action against Defendant.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The court also correctly noted that under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), such a dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. The order recites that the parties filed a joint motion as required by Local Civil Rule 7.2. The decision follows directly from the rule and the parties' agreement.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal rules and local rules. It accurately states the legal standard for voluntary dismissal by stipulation and the default effect of such a dismissal. The reasoning is sufficient for a routine procedural order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRIESLAND FISHING COMPANY Case No. 22-cv-01797-BAS-WVG LLC, 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE (ECF No. 14 11) BEN BROWN MAUGHAN III, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the above-captioned action. (ECF No. 20 11.) 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 notice or 26 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 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 ||41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 2 || litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 3 ||41(a)(1)(A)(a1), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. 4 Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 5 ||(ECF No. 11.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the action against 6 || Defendant. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 A , 9 DATED: September 26, 2023 yi uA (Bashan. 6 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28