Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mosqueda v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., 1:14-cv-001891-JLT. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160506936 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 05, 2016
Latest Update: May 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CLOSE THE MATTER (Doc. 17) JENNIFER L. THURSTON , Magistrate Judge . On May 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the matter. (Doc. 17) The stipulation relies upon Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by
More

ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION TO CLOSE THE MATTER

(Doc. 17)

On May 4, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the matter. (Doc. 17) The stipulation relies upon Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which "the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Once the parties file such a notice, a Court order is not required to dismiss the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action in light of the notice of dismissal without prejudice filed and properly signed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer