Russell v. Yates Construction, LLC

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

ANDREW RUSSELL and BRANDON GABBERT PLAINTIFFS

v. Case No. 1:21-cv-1026

YATES CONSTRUCTION, LLC and DENVER PIGG DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 32. The parties state that they have resolved this matter and request that this case be dismissed with prejudice. 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). The Court views the instant motion as functionally equivalent to a stipulation of dismissal because all parties have signed onto the request for dismissal. Thus, all claims were effectively dismissed when the parties jointly filed the instant motion. However, this order issues for the purpose of maintaining the Court’s docket. The parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 32) is hereby GRANTED. 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 27th day of October, 2022.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge