Eller v. Automatic Data Processing, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California · 3:23-cv-00943 · 2023-10-11 · Unknown

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

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T21:48Z · confidence high

The court considered the parties' joint motion to voluntarily dismiss the action and dissolve the previously entered temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The court granted the motion, dissolved the orders, and dismissed the action with prejudice.

What the court decided	The model
Grant the joint motion to dismiss the action and dissolve the TRO and PI. “Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 38.) The Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 18) and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 23) entered on June 5, 2023 and June 16, 2023 are dissolved in their entireties and are of no further force or effect. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendant.”	agree with court The decision follows from the law and the record recited. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The parties filed a joint motion (stipulation) to dismiss. Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that a dismissal under this rule is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. The order states the action is dismissed 'with prejudice,' which implies the parties stipulated to this outcome in their joint motion, or the court is applying the parties' agreement. The dissolution of the TRO and PI is a necessary consequence of the dismissal of the underlying action. The court correctly cites the local rule requiring such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion.

What the court decided

The model

Grant the joint motion to dismiss the action and dissolve the TRO and PI.

“Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 38.) The Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 18) and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 23) entered on June 5, 2023 and June 16, 2023 are dissolved in their entireties and are of no further force or effect. The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendant.”

agree with court
The decision follows from the law and the record recited. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss an action by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The parties filed a joint motion (stipulation) to dismiss. Rule 41(a)(1)(B) provides that a dismissal under this rule is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. The order states the action is dismissed 'with prejudice,' which implies the parties stipulated to this outcome in their joint motion, or the court is applying the parties' agreement. The dissolution of the TRO and PI is a necessary consequence of the dismissal of the underlying action. The court correctly cites the local rule requiring such stipulations to be filed as a joint motion.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable rule (Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)) for voluntary dismissal by stipulation. It correctly notes that the local rule requires this to be filed as a joint motion, which it was. It correctly cites the default rule that such dismissals are without prejudice unless stipulated otherwise, and then dismisses with prejudice, implying the stipulation contained that term. The dissolution of the TRO and PI is logically consistent with the dismissal of the action. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AMY ELLER, Case No. 23-cv-0943-BAS-AHG 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS ACTION 11 AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING, WITH PREJUDICE (ECF No. 38) INC., 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of 16 Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the above-captioned action and to 17 dissolve the Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and the Preliminary Injunction 18 entered on June 5, 2023 and June 16, 2023 respectively. (ECF No. 38.) 19 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its 20 action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer 21 or moved for summary judgment or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 22 parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San 23 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a notice 24 or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 25 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 26 dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, 28 litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 1 41(a)(1)(A)GD), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 2 || 7.2. 3 Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. 4 (ECF No. 38.) The Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 18) and Preliminary 5 || Injunction (ECF No. 23) entered on June 5, 2023 and June 16, 2023 are dissolved in their 6 || entireties and are of no further force or effect. The Court DISMISSES WITH 7 || PREJUDICE the action against Defendant. Each party shall bear its own costs and 8 || attorney fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 , 11 || DATED: October 11, 2023 (pile A A (Bashan. 6 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28