Daigle v. City of Oceanside

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 BRANDON LEE DAIGLE, et al., Case No. 19-cv-1180-BAS-WVG

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION TO DISMISS

14 CITY OF OCEANSIDE, et al., [ECF No. 88] 15 Defendants.

17 Before this Court is the parties’ joint motion to dismiss this action with prejudice 18 under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Joint Mot., ECF No. 88.) In support of their Joint Motion, 19 the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties who have appeared. (See 20 id. 2–3) 21 Under Rule 41(a)(1), a plaintiff has an absolute right to voluntarily dismiss its action 22 by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal before a defendant has filed an answer or 23 moved for summary judgment, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties 24 who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 25 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice 26 or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. 27 Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A 28 1 ||dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 }}41(a)(1)(B). 3 Nonetheless, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants 4 ||seek voluntary dismissal by filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)Q0), 5 ||such a stipulation must be filed as a joint motion.! 6 Having considered the parties’ request, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. (ECF 7 || No. 88.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the instant action. The Clerk 8 Court is directed to close the case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. / , 10 || DATED: March 21, 2022 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘orthe coo Electronic Case Ping Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court