D.M. v. County of Merced

District Court, E.D. California·Decided November 19, 2024·No. 1:20-cv-00409·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA D.M., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE V. DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41 (a) COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Defendants. (ECF No. 180) On November 18, 2024, a stipulation was filed dismissing this action with prejudice. (ECF No. 180.) In light of the stipulation of the parties, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).)(A)Gi); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to close the file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a). IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. 93 Dated: _November 19, 2024 ; STANLEY A. BOONE United States Magistrate Judge

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

D.M. v. County of Merced, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

D.M. v. County of Merced (D.M. v. County of Merced) — 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)