Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00558/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00558-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On July 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice against the City 

of Fresno Defendants (which consist of the City of Fresno and three of its employees) only. See

Doc. No. 141. The stipulation is signed by all Plaintiffs and the City of Fresno. See id. Although 

the County of Fresno and two of its employees are also defendants and have filed an answer, they 

did not sign the stipulated dismissal. See id. To date, there have been no other filings in this 

matter.

Once parties have appeared in a case, a stipulated dismissal is automatically effective if all 

parties sign the stipulation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Where multiple defendants have 

appeared, and the plaintiff seeks to dismiss some but not all of the defendants, each defendant who 

has appeared must sign the stipulation; it is not enough that only the plaintiff and the defendant 

who is the subject of the dismissal has signed. See Department of Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Gyrus 

ACMI, LP, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65809, *3-*4 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2014); Best Indus. (PVT) v. 

Pegasus Mar., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80563, *7-*8 (S.D. N.Y. June 7, 2013); Kinard v. City 

I.R., through the guardian ad litem 

Claudia Nava, et al.,

Plaintiff

v.

CITY OF FRESNO, et al.,

Defendants

CASE NO. 1:12-CV-558 AWI BAM 

(consolidated with 1:13-cv-850 AWI GSA)

ORDER DISMISSING CITY OF 

FRESNO DEFENDANTS WITH 

PREJUDICE and ORDER TO SHOW 

CAUSE

(Doc. No. 6)

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 142 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

of Greenville, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137591, *1 (D. S.C. June 14, 2012); Vision Bank v. 145, 

LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93018, *2-*3 (S.D. Ala. Aug. 19, 2011); Alholm v. American S.S. 

Co., 167 F.R.D. 75, 79-80 (D. Minn. 1996). Here, the County of Fresno defendants have not 

signed the stipulation. Therefore, the Court will treat the stipulation between Plaintiffs and the 

City of Fresno defendants as a motion under Rule 41(a)(2). See Kinard, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

137591 at *1-*2; Van Maanen v. Youth with a Mission-Bishop, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6032, *3 

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 18, 2012); Vision Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93018 at *3; Tipton v. Stegall, 

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80360, *1-*2 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 2, 2009).

Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action

may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers 

proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a motion for voluntary 

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal 

prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

Here, no Defendants have objected or responded to Plaintiff’s requested dismissal. 

Furthermore, the Court approved a minor’s settlement in this matter on January 28, 2015. See

Doc. No. 132. Given the time that has now passed, not only from the time that settlement was 

approved but also from the time that the stipulation was filed, the Court will view the Plaintiffs’

request as being unopposed. The Court sees no reason to deny Plaintiffs’ requested dismissal of 

the City of Fresno defendants with prejudice, and therefore will grant Plaintiff’s request. See Fed. 

R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

With the dismissal of the City of Fresno Defendants, the County of Fresno Defendants are 

the only remaining defendants. The Court was notified that this case had settled in August 2014, 

and as noted above, it approved a minor’s settlement in January 2015. It is now October 2015, 

and dispositional papers have not been filed with respect to the County of Fresno. There has been 

more than enough time for Plaintiffs and the County Defendants to complete the settlement and 

file dispositional papers. Given the passage of time, and the inexplicable delay, the Court will 

order the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 142 Filed 10/07/15 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(2) request for dismissal with prejudice of Defendants the City 

of Fresno, Miguel Alvarez, Sammy Ashworth, and Troy Miller (Doc. No. 141) is 

GRANTED and these Defendants are DISMISSED from this case with prejudice; 

and

2. Plaintiffs and the County Defendants shall show cause in writing within seven (7) 

days of service of this order why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice 

for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 7, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00558-AWI-EPG Document 142 Filed 10/07/15 Page 3 of 3