Bulnes v. Suez WTS Services USA, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided February 27, 2024·No. 3:22-cv-01154·Unknown

Opinion

Martin Bulnes, Case No. 22-cv-1154-BAS-AHG

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ v. JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH Suez WTS Services USA, Inc.; GE PREJUDICE (ECF No. 30) Mobile Water, Inc.; and Does 1 through 100, Defendant. Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 30.) Plaintiff originally filed this case as a putative class action, but this Court dismissed the putative class claims without prejudice, closed the case, and ordered the parties to arbitration nearly a year ago. (ECF No. 28.) This allowed Plaintiff’s individual claims to survive as the parties proceeded into arbitration. Now, having completed arbitration, the parties jointly move to dismiss Plaintiff’s individual claims with prejudice. (ECF No. 30 at 1:13–23.) Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Qai) is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice or stipulation. No court order is required. See Stone v. Woodford, CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). Here, the parties have stipulated otherwise. (See ECF No. 30.) The Clerk of Court is ORDERED to re-open the case solely for the purposes of this order. Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (/d.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. The Clerk of Court further ORDERED to amend the Clerk’s Judgment to reflect this order and is directed to close the case. DATED: February 27, 2024 ( yi uA (Hiphan 6 United States District Judge ——_—— See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California. ~_9.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bulnes v. Suez WTS Services USA, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2024).

Bulnes v. Suez WTS Services USA, Inc. (Bulnes v. Suez WTS Services USA, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. City of San Jose
111 F.3d 688 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)