Gopher Media LLC v. GoGroth LLC
- 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.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion to Dismiss granted; action dismissed with prejudice.“Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF No. 28.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action.” | agree with court The order correctly applies Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows voluntary dismissal by stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared. The parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice, overriding the default rule of dismissal without prejudice. The court’s reliance on local rules requiring a joint motion format is consistent with the ECF Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual cited in the footnote. The decision follows directly from the text of the rule and the parties' stipulation. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate federal rules and supporting case law. It accurately notes that while no court order is strictly required for a stipulated dismissal, local rules in the Southern District of California require the stipulation to be filed as a joint motion. The court correctly grants the motion based on the parties' stipulation to dismiss with prejudice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GOPHER MEDIA LLC, doing Case No. 23-cv-0226-BAS-DEB business as Doctor Multimedia, a 12 Nevada Limited Liability Company; ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 JET DIGITAL LLC, a Nevada MOTION TO DISMISS Limited Liability Company, (ECF No. 28) 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 GOGROTH LLC, doing business 17 as GROWTH99, a Florida limited 18 liability company; CAMERON HEMPHILL, an individual; DOES 19 1–10; 20 Defendants. 21 22 Before this Court is the parties’ request to dismiss this action with prejudice pursuant 23 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41. (Mot., ECF No. 28.) Under Rule 24 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action by (1) filing a 25 notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary 26 judgment, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 27 parties who have appeared, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 28 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is effective 1 ||upon the filing of a compliant notice or stipulation. No court order is required. See Stone 2 ||v. Woodford, CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). 3 || Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek 4 ||voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1), such a 5 stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 6 A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. See Fed. R. 7 || Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, the parties have stipulated otherwise. (See Mot., ECF No. 28 8 (stipulating to dismissal with prejudice).) 9 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 10 || No. 28.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. The Clerk 11 Court is directed to close the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 13 || DATED: December 5, 2023 Lin A (Bashan. 6 14 United States District Judge 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.