Veasy v. Tricopian, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYLER VEASY, Case No. 19-cv-2060-MMA (JLB) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DISMISSAL 13 v. 14 TRICOPIAN, INC., and TRICOPIAN (SWITZERLAND) SARL, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 On July 24, 2020, the parties filed a “Joint Stipulation for Dismissal with 20 Prejudice” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). See Doc. No. 21. 21 Given the joint stipulation and its basis under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), this case has been 22 dismissed and the action has been terminated. See Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. 23 Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]nce a notice of voluntary dismissal 24 is filed, the district court in which the action is pending loses jurisdiction and cannot 25 exercise discretion with respect to the terms and conditions of the dismissal.”); see also 26 Duke Energy Trading & Mktg., L.L.C. v. Davis, 267 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th Cir. 2001) 27 (“The [filing of a Rule 41(a)(1)(i) notice] itself closes the file.”); Acosta v. Lopez, No. 28 1:18-cv-00625-AWI-SKO, 2019 WL 5536321, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 25, 2019) (“Once 1 ||the stipulation between the parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in open 2 |/court, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Case law concerning 3 ||stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1) is clear that the entry of such a 4 ||stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial 5 ||approval.”); Milton v. Lawton, No. 1:04-cv-05556-AWI-WMW, 2009 WL 530909, at *1 6 ||(E.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2009) (same). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 ||Dated: August 14, 2020 10 WMibthe LIu - (ciples i United Sines District Iudge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28