Mastronardi International Limited v. SunSelect Produce (California), Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 23, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-00737·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MASTRONARDI INTERNATIONAL Case No.: 1:18-cv-00737 AWI JLT LIMITED, 12 ORDER CLOSING THE ACTION Plaintiff, 13 (Doc. 70) v. 14 SUNSELECT PRODUCE (CALIFORNIA), 15 INC.,

16 Defendant.

18 AND RELATED CROSS AND 19 CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS 20

21 The parties have stipulated to this consolidated action being dismissed with prejudice and 22 with the parties bearing their own fees and costs. (Doc. 70) Part of their stipulation is that Doc. 1 of 23 the case consolidated into this one, Case Number 1:20-cv-00735, be sealed. However, the Court has 24 already sealed the unredacted copy of that document and the public docket reflects only a redacted 25 copy. Counsel have provided no information supporting sealing of the redacted copy as required by 26 Local Rule 141. 27 In any event, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 41 makes stipulations to dismiss 28 effective immediately without further order of the Court. Because all parties who have appeared in 1 the action signed the stipulation, it “automatically terminate[d] the action.” Wilson v. City of San 2 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this 3 action. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated: July 22, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 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

Mastronardi International Limited v. SunSelect Produce (California), Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Mastronardi International Limited v. SunSelect Produce (California), Inc. (Mastronardi International Limited v. SunSelect Produce (California), Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. City of San Jose
111 F.3d 688 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)