Doe 4 v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JANE DOE #4, Case No. 1:23-cv-01174-JLT-SAB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS, 13 v. DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE, AND DISMISSING ACTION PURSUANT TO 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 15 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 20, 21, 22) 16 17 18 On October 4, 2023, this matter was settled at a settlement conference at least as to some 19 named parties, and dispositional documents were to be filed withing thirty (30) days. (ECF No. 20 19.) On November 7, 2023, the Court issued an order to show cause as neither dispositional 21 documents, nor a request for extension, was filed by the deadline. (ECF No. 20.) 22 On November 7, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff filed a response to the order to show cause 23 indicating that: the parties were working on draft settlement agreements after the date of 24 settlement; the final drafts of these agreements were emailed by defense counsel on October 23, 25 2023; after receipt of the final drafts, Plaintiff’s counsel worked diligently to obtain client 26 signatures, and immediately sent by way of regular mail a copy of the Settlement Agreement and 27 Release to Plaintiff on October 24, 2023; Plaintiff is in custody at CDCR, received and signed the 28 Settlement Agreement and Release on October 27, 2023, and returned the document by way of 1 regular mail; counsel for Plaintiff received the signed Settlement Agreement and Release on 2 November 2, 2023, and immediately emailed the executed settlement agreement to defense 3 counsel on that day; counsel for Plaintiff has requested a fully executed copy of the Settlement 4 Agreement and Release prior to filing dismissal documents, but had not been provided a fully 5 executed copy as of the date dispositional documents were due; counsel for Plaintiff had indicated 6 that he would sign and return dismissal documents as soon as Jane Doe #4 received a copy of the 7 fully executed settlement agreement; counsel for Plaintiff did receive a fully executed copy from 8 defense counsel on November 7, 2023, as well as a Stipulation for Voluntary Dismissal with 9 Prejudice; and counsel for Plaintiff has authorized defense counsel to sign and file the Stipulation 10 for Dismissal as soon as possible and anticipates that will be filed today. (ECF No. 21 at 1-2.) 11 While Defendants have not directly provided a response to the order to show cause, in 12 light of the Plaintiff’s filing, and the stipulation of dismissal immediately filed thereafter by 13 Defendants, discussed next, the Court shall discharge the order to show cause. However, in most 14 cases, the Court would not discharge an order to show cause until all parties have explained their 15 positions. 16 On November 8, 2023, a stipulation of dismissal was filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 17 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 22.) The stipulation is filed by counsel for 18 Plaintiff, and by counsel for Defendants State of California, CDCR, and M. Pallares. Defendant 19 Greg Rodriguez is named as a Defendant, however, has not appeared in this action. No 20 Defendant has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. The filing provides that the 21 stipulating parties agree to dismissal of this action and all claims and causes of action with 22 prejudice, and with the parties to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees. 23 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, ‘a plaintiff has an 24 absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action prior to service by the defendant of an answer or a 25 motion for summary judgment.’ ” Commercial Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 26 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 27 1997)). Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) provides that a “plaintiff 28 may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all 1 | parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1 )(A)(a1). 2 In light of the filing, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)@)-G0); 3 | Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with 4 | prejudice and without an award of costs or attorneys’ fees. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The order to show cause issued on November 7, 2023, (ECF No. 20), is 7 DISCHARGED; 8 2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file dispositional documents is 9 GRANTED; and 10 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the file in this case and adjust the 11 docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule □□□□ 12 B IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 14 | Dated: _ November 8, 2023 Is UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28