Fierro v. Capital One, N.A.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA FIERRO, Case No. 22-cv-0493-BAS-BLM Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT v. MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 35)

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is the parties’ joint motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) to dismiss the above-captioned action. (Joint Mot., ECF No. 35.) Under Rule 41(a)(1), 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, or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); see also Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal is effective upon the filing of a compliant notice or stipulation, as described in Rule 41(a)(1)(A), and no court order is required. Stone v. | || Woodford, No. CIV-F-05-845 AWI-DLB, 2007 WL 527766 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). A dismissal is without prejudice unless the parties stipulate otherwise. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). However, the local civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal pursuant to stipulation, in accordance with Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(1), the stipulation of dismissal must be filed as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2. Having considered the parties’ submission, the Court GRANTS Joint Motion. (ECF 35.) Thus, the Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the action against Defendant. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. A , DATED: June 14, 2023 Lin A (Lyphaa. 6 United States District Judge 4.