Hernandez v. Bobst, North America, Inc.

E.D. California

Hernandez v. Bobst, North America, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 4, 2022·No. 1:19-cv-00882·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MICHAEL HERNANDEZ and BECKY No. 1:19-cv-00882-NONE-SKO HERNANDEZ, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A v. DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER AND BOBST GROUP NORTH AMERICA, 15 INC., (Doc. 85)

16 Defendant. 17

18 19 On January 3, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation that this action be dismissed with 20 prejudice. (Doc. 85.) 21 In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as 22 follows: 23 [A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 24 judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41 thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after 26 service of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all the parties who have 27 28 1 appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 2 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 4 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning 5 stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of 6 dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval. Commercial Space 7 Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). Because the parties have filed a 8 stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice that is signed by all who have made an 9 appearance, this case has terminated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL 11 assign a district judge to this matter and thereafter CLOSE the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: January 4, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MICHAEL HERNANDEZ and BECKY No. 1:19-cv-00882-NONE-SKO HERNANDEZ, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A v. DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER AND BOBST GROUP NORTH AMERICA, 15 INC., (Doc. 85)

16 Defendant. 17

18 19 On January 3, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation that this action be dismissed with 20 prejudice. (Doc. 85.) 21 In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides as 22 follows: 23 [A] plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary 24 judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41 thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after 26 service of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all the parties who have 27 28 1 appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 2 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 3 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 4 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning 5 stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of 6 dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval. Commercial Space 7 Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). Because the parties have filed a 8 stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice that is signed by all who have made an 9 appearance, this case has terminated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL 11 assign a district judge to this matter and thereafter CLOSE the case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 14 Dated: January 4, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Hernandez v. Bobst, North America, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Hernandez v. Bobst, North America, Inc. (Hernandez v. Bobst, North America, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.