Munoz v. R.M. Galicia, Inc.

E.D. California

Munoz v. R.M. Galicia, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 25, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-00842·Unknown

Opinion

MIGUEL ANGEL MUNOZ, CASE NO. 1:22-CV-0842 AWI BAM

Plaintiff ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH v. PREJUDICE

R. M. GALICIA, INC. d/b/a Progressive Management Systems, (Doc. No. 19) Defendant On December 8, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this case with prejudice, but with a request for the Court to retain jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 19. The stipulation is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(i)(A)(ii). See id. Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the 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 judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not require a court order/court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989). I Here, the parties in this case have signed the stipulated dismissal. See Doc. No. 19. 9, | Because all appearing parties have signed the stipulated dismissal with prejudice, this case has terminated automatically. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); Yesh Music, 727 F.3d at 362; Commercial Space, 193 F.3d at 1077. > Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is to CLOSE this case in light of the ° parties’ filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(1) Stipulation Of Dismissal with prejudice, but as stipulated by the parties, the Court will retain jurisdiction in order to enforce, if necessary, the

terms of the settlement agreement. IS SO ORDERED. 2p Dated: _ January 24, 2023 7 Sz, 7 Cb Lec "SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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

MIGUEL ANGEL MUNOZ, CASE NO. 1:22-CV-0842 AWI BAM

Plaintiff ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH v. PREJUDICE

R. M. GALICIA, INC. d/b/a Progressive Management Systems, (Doc. No. 19) Defendant On December 8, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss this case with prejudice, but with a request for the Court to retain jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 19. The stipulation is made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(i)(A)(ii). See id. Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the 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 judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), when properly filed, are effective immediately and do not require a court order/court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356, 362 (5th Cir. 2013); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989). I Here, the parties in this case have signed the stipulated dismissal. See Doc. No. 19. 9, | Because all appearing parties have signed the stipulated dismissal with prejudice, this case has terminated automatically. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); Yesh Music, 727 F.3d at 362; Commercial Space, 193 F.3d at 1077. > Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is to CLOSE this case in light of the ° parties’ filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(1) Stipulation Of Dismissal with prejudice, but as stipulated by the parties, the Court will retain jurisdiction in order to enforce, if necessary, the

terms of the settlement agreement. IS SO ORDERED. 2p Dated: _ January 24, 2023 7 Sz, 7 Cb Lec "SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Munoz v. R.M. Galicia, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Munoz v. R.M. Galicia, Inc. (Munoz v. R.M. Galicia, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related