Marin v. Lion Oil Company, LLC

W.D. Arkansas

Marin v. Lion Oil Company, LLC

DecidedJanuary 7, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-01024

StatusUnknown

This text of Marin v. Lion Oil Company, LLC (Marin v. Lion Oil Company, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marin v. Lion Oil Company, LLC, (W.D. Ark. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION DOYLE LAWSON PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 1:20-cv-1024 JOHN H. BROWN, JR., and BLAIR LOGISTICS, LLC DEFENDANT ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal. ECF No. 35. The parties ask that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. An action may be dismissed by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.” Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants were effectively dismissed when the parties filed the instant stipulation. However, this order issues for the purpose of maintaining the Court’s docket. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. If any party desires that the terms of any settlement be a part of the record therein, those terms should be reduced to writing and filed with the Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of this judgment. The Court retains jurisdiction

to vacate this order upon cause shown that any such settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2022. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION DOYLE LAWSON PLAINTIFF v. Case No. 1:20-cv-1024 JOHN H. BROWN, JR., and BLAIR LOGISTICS, LLC DEFENDANT ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal. ECF No. 35. The parties ask that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and fees. An action may be dismissed by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.” Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984). Thus, Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants were effectively dismissed when the parties filed the instant stipulation. However, this order issues for the purpose of maintaining the Court’s docket. This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. If any party desires that the terms of any settlement be a part of the record therein, those terms should be reduced to writing and filed with the Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of this judgment. The Court retains jurisdiction

to vacate this order upon cause shown that any such settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 7th day of January, 2022. /s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Marin v. Lion Oil Company, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marin-v-lion-oil-company-llc-arwd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack