Thacker v. Alvarez ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL THACKER, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-0423- LJO JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT ) TO CLOSE THIS ACTION AS TO 13 v. ) DEFENDANT AMTRAK CALIFORNIA AND ) TO UPDATE THE DOCKET 14 RAFAEL ALVAREZ, et al., ) ) (Doc. 25) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 On October 24, 2019, the parties stipulated to the dismissal of Defendant Amtrak California 18 without prejudice. (Doc. 25) Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss claims 19 “without a court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” 20 Because all remaining parties that have appeared signed the stipulation, it “automatically” terminated 21 the claims against Amtrak California. Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 Based upon the Rule 41 stipulation, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action only 23 as to Defendant Amtrak California and update the docket. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 26, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 27 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28