Estate of Maurice Monk v. County

Opinion

1 4 5 ESTATE OF MAURICE MONK, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04037-TSH 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR 7 v. VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 8 CALIFORNIA FORENSIC MEDICAL Re: Dkt. No. 183 9 GROUP, et al., Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Nia’ Amore Monk as co-successor-in-interest to the Estate of Maurice Monk and 12 as an individual, and Defendants WellPath, LLC and California Forensic Medical Group have 13 filed a stipulation and proposed order for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14 41(a)(1)Gi). ECF No. 183. The Court construes this as a request for dismissal pursuant to Rule 3 15 41(a)(1)(A)Gi), which provides that “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by a 16 || filing... a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” However, as the 3 17 |] joint stipulation is not signed by Plaintiff Kyse Monk, dismissal is improper. If Plaintiff seeks to S 18 || dismiss her claims, she may do so by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 19 have appeared pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or a motion for dismissal pursuant to Rule 20 41(a)(2). If filing a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must comply with Civil Local Rule 21 7 and address the following factors: (1) whether the Court should allow dismissal; (2) whether the 22 dismissal should be with or without prejudice; and (3) what terms and conditions, if any, should be 23 imposed. See Fraley v. Facebook, Inc., 2012 WL 893152, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012) (citing 24 Williams v. Peralta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 227 F.R.D. 538, 539 (N.D. Cal. 2005)). 26 Dated: June 6, 2025 27 AL \ - lL 4 □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 28 United States Magistrate Judge