Estate of Joe Anaya III v. Imperial County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ESTATE OF JOE ANAYA III, by estate Case No.: 23-cv-1670-RSH-LR representative Martha Anaya; 12 SAMANTHA ANAYA; J.A., a minor, ORDER ON JOINT MOTION TO 13 through his guardian ad litem, Pamela DISMISS Estrada; and M.A., a minor through her 14 guardian ad litem, Vanessa Muhebes, [ECF No. 29] 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 IMPERIAL COUNTY, et al., 18 Defendants. 19

20 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 29. The Motion 21 satisfies the requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and is effective on filing. See Wilson v. 22 City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). The action, in its entirety, is hereby 23 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each Party is to bear its own fees and costs. 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ 3 Dated: November 26, 2024 Jehu 7 ‘ Howe 4 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28