RYDOLPH v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., C 16-05694 WHA. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161215a05
Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Dec. 14, 2016
Summary: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WITH PREJUDICE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiff Howard Rydolph and defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a stipulated request pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss Wells Fargo from this action with prejudice (Dkt. No. 27). The stipulated request seeks a court order to that effect ( ibid. at 2). FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits the plaintiff to "dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a stipulati
Summary: ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WITH PREJUDICE WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . Plaintiff Howard Rydolph and defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a stipulated request pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss Wells Fargo from this action with prejudice (Dkt. No. 27). The stipulated request seeks a court order to that effect ( ibid. at 2). FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits the plaintiff to "dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a stipulatio..
More
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATION TO DISMISS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., WITH PREJUDICE
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
Plaintiff Howard Rydolph and defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed a stipulated request pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss Wells Fargo from this action with prejudice (Dkt. No. 27). The stipulated request seeks a court order to that effect (ibid. at 2).
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) permits the plaintiff to "dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared" (emphasis added). This provision is not a proper basis for plaintiff and Wells Fargo's stipulated request. The correct procedure here would have been for plaintiff to simply file a dismissal of Wells Fargo, without seeking a court order, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Nonetheless, as a concession to the shortness of life, the stipulation is APPROVED without prejudice to other defendants impleading Wells Fargo. To be clear, this means the phrase "with prejudice" in the approved stipulation refers only to plaintiff's claims and not to any potential cross-claims (that might possibly be asserted later in the case) by Wells Fargo's co-defendants against Wells Fargo.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
