ORDER DISMISSING CITY OF FRESNO DEFENDANTS WITH PREJUDICE and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. No. 6)

ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice against the City of Fresno Defendants (which consist of the City of Fresno and three of its employees) only. See Doc. No. 141. The stipulation is signed by all Plaintiffs and the City of Fresno. See id. Although the County of Fresno and two of its employees are also defendants and have filed an answer, they did not sign the stipulated dismissal. See id. To date, there have been no other filings in this matter.

Once parties have appeared in a case, a stipulated dismissal is automatically effective if all parties sign the stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Where multiple defendants have appeared, and the plaintiff seeks to dismiss some but not all of the defendants, each defendant who has appeared must sign the stipulation; it is not enough that only the plaintiff and the defendant who is the subject of the dismissal has signed. See Department of Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Gyrus ACMI, LP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65809, *3-*4 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2014); Best Indus. (PVT) v. Pegasus Mar., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80563, *7-*8 (S.D. N.Y. June 7, 2013); Kinard v. City of Greenville, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137591, *1 (D. S.C. June 14, 2012); Vision Bank v. 145, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93018, *2-*3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 19, 2011); Alholm v. American S.S. Co., 167 F.R.D. 75, 79-80 (D. Minn. 1996). Here, the County of Fresno defendants have not signed the stipulation. Therefore, the Court will treat the stipulation between Plaintiffs and the City of Fresno defendants as a motion under Rule 41(a)(2). See Kinard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137591 at *1-*2; Van Maanen v. Youth with a Mission-Bishop, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6032, *3 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012); Vision Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93018 at *3; Tipton v. Stegall, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80360, *1-*2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 2, 2009).

Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: "Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). "A district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result." Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, no Defendants have objected or responded to Plaintiff's requested dismissal. Furthermore, the Court approved a minor's settlement in this matter on January 28, 2015. See Doc. No. 132. Given the time that has now passed, not only from the time that settlement was approved but also from the time that the stipulation was filed, the Court will view the Plaintiffs' request as being unopposed. The Court sees no reason to deny Plaintiffs' requested dismissal of the City of Fresno defendants with prejudice, and therefore will grant Plaintiff's request. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

With the dismissal of the City of Fresno Defendants, the County of Fresno Defendants are the only remaining defendants. The Court was notified that this case had settled in August 2014, and as noted above, it approved a minor's settlement in January 2015. It is now October 2015, and dispositional papers have not been filed with respect to the County of Fresno. There has been more than enough time for Plaintiffs and the County Defendants to complete the settlement and file dispositional papers. Given the passage of time, and the inexplicable delay, the Court will order the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.