Whitall v. Gutierrez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAYMOND RICHARD WHITALL, Case No. 20-cv-00910-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING ENTRY OF 10 v. PROPOSED JUDGMENT (DKT. 223)

11 DAVINA GUTIERREZ, 12 Defendant.

13 The parties have filed a [Joint Proposed] Judgment in which they apparently request 14 the Court enter judgment in favor of Defendant Davina Gutierrez and against Plaintiff 15 Raymond Richard Whitall. Dkt. 223. The Court cannot and will not enter this judgment. 16 The Federal Rules define “judgment” as “a decree [or] any order from which an 17 appeal lies.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(a). Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal by stipulation of the 18 action with prejudice is not a “decree.” Decree, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024) 19 (“a judicial decision in a court of equity, admiralty, divorce, or probate”). Nor is it an 20 appealable order. See Sperring v. LLR, Inc., 995 F.3d 680, 682 (9th Cir. 2021); accord 21 State Treas. of State of Mich. v. Barry, 168 F.3d 8, 11 (11th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, 22 Plaintiffs terminated this action when they voluntarily dismissed it pursuant to Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). There is nothing, including entry of judgment, left 24 for the Court to do. See Comm. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 n.4 25 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal is “self-executing” (citation omitted)). 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: June 18, 2025