Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Silva v. Worth, 1:16-cv-01131-LJO-SKO (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190627822 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2019
Summary: ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, FED. R. CIV. P. 41 Doc. 67 CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds solely against Defendant J. Worth. On June 19, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of
More

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE, FED. R. CIV. P. 41

Doc. 67

CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE

Plaintiff, Anthony Silva, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds solely against Defendant J. Worth. On June 19, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice of this matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after service of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Assoc., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986).

Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. "Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval." In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) cf. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (addressing Rule 41(a)(1) dismissals). "The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice," and the dismissal "automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice." Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995).

Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747 F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077; cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation For Voluntary Dismissal With Prejudice.

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