Reyes-Aguilar v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICA REYES-AGUILAR, No. 1:19-cv-00403-NONE-SKO 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN 13 v. A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER AND CLOSE THE CASE 14 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, (Doc. 29) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 On October 23, 2020, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. filed a stipulation, signed by all 20 parties who have appeared, that this action be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 of the 21 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 29.) 22 In relevant part, Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides as follows: 23 [A] 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 24 summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 25 appeared. 26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Rule 41 thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after 27 service of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all the parties who have 28 appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 1 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). 2 Once the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in 3 open court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning 4 stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of 5 dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.1 Commercial Space 6 Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). Because the parties have filed a 7 stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) that is signed by all 8 whom have made an appearance, this case has terminated. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). 9 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court SHALL assign 10 a district judge to this matter and thereafter CLOSE the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Sheila K. Oberto 13 Dated: October 27, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 Plaintiff’s complaint alleges a claim under the California Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”), Cal. Lab. Code § 2699. (Doc. 1-1.) Proposed settlements of PAGA claims are ordinarily subject to court approval. Cal. Lab. Code 27 § 2699(l)(2); see also Castro v. Paragon Industries, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00755-DAD-SKO, 2020 WL 1984240, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 27, 2020). Plaintiff has stipulated that she has no valid PAGA claim (see Doc. 28), and, as such, no 28 Court approval is necessary.