Smith v. Karr

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

ANGELA SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 6:19-cv-06025

MYLES B. KARR and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1–20 DEFENDANTS

ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. (ECF No. 45). The Court finds that no response is necessary and that the matter is ready for consideration. The parties indicate that they have settled all disputes between them. They ask the Court to dismiss this case with prejudice, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees, and with dismissal of any counterclaim and claims against John and Jane Does. 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, the parties’ claims were effectively dismissed when the parties filed the instant stipulation. However, this order issues for the purpose of maintaining the Court’s docket. Accordingly, it is ORDERED this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ fees. If any party desires that the terms of 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 the settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of August 2021.

/s/ ROBERT T. DAWSON SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE