Barrett v. Biomet, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 STEPHEN BARRETT No. 1:19-CV-00553-NONE-EPG MARIA BARRETT, 5 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING ASSIGNMENT 6 OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 7 v. PURPOSES OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN TO CLOSE THIS CASE IN BIOMET, INC., 8 LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR Defendant. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 9 10 On February 4, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with 11 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). See Doc. No. 17. The notice is 12 signed by all parties who have appeared in this case. 13 14 Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads: 15 (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 16 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 17 states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice. 18 Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after service 19 of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties who have 20 appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. See Carter v. Beverly Hills 21 Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472- 22 73 (9th Cir. 1986). Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed 23 or made in open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 24 41(a)(1)(A); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 25 41(a) (1) (ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and 26 does not require judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. 27 A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 28 1 | 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 2 | 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). 3 As the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under Rule 4 | 41(a)(1) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has terminated. See 5 || Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)Gi); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747 F.2d at 1189; see 6 | also Gambale, 377 F.3d at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077. 7 Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 8 | district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to CLOSE THIS CASE. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ February 10, 2020 [sf ey 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28