Fisher v. Army National Guard ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHANNA FISHER, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01471-JLT-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA 12 v. MILITARY DEPARTMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 UNITED STATES, et al., (ECF No. 61) 14 Defendants. 15 16 On June 17, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation for the dismissal of Defendant California 17 Military Department without prejudice and with each party bearing its own costs and attorneys’ 18 fees as related to the dismissal of California Military Department. (ECF No. 61). In light of the 19 parties’ stipulation, this case against California Military Department has been terminated, Fed. R. 20 Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and has been dismissed without prejudice and without an award of costs 21 or attorneys’ fees as related to the dismissal of California Military Department.1 22 \\\ 23 \\\ 24 \\\ 25 1 The Court notes that the operative complaint, the second amended complaint, does not name California 26 Military Department as a defendant. (ECF No. 50). Thus, California Military Department is no longer a party in this case. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992), as amended (May 22, 27 1992) (noting that operative complaint designates proper defendants to an action, not earlier complaints). Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the Court enters this order pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, 28 directing the Clerk of Court to terminate California Military Department as a defendant in this action. 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to terminate California Military Department as 2 | adefendant in this case. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5] Dated: _ June 21, 2022 hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28