Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01648/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01648-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Virginia G. Kaufer, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

General Electric Company, a Connecticut

corporation, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1648-PHX-JAT

ORDER

On February 7, 2006, Plaintiff Virginia Kaufer filed a Motion to Dismiss by

Stipulation of the Parties. Pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation to Dismiss, on February

9, 2006, the Court Ordered the case dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own

costs and fees. The order of dismissal was entered and this case was terminated.

On April 27, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Change Wording of Stipulation to

Dismiss. The Plaintiff asks the Court to change the wording of the Order from "dismissed

with prejudice, each party to bear their own costs and attorney's fees incurred herein," to read

only "dismissed without prejudice." On May 1, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to remove

her attorney from the case and to proceed pro se. 

The Defendant filed a Response on May 8, 2006. The Defendant argues that the

Court lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief requested by the Plaintiff. The Court agrees.

The Plaintiff in this case voluntarily dismissed this case by filing a stipulation of

dismissal signed by all parties in the action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii). The

Case 2:05-cv-01648-JAT Document 26 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 2
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 -

stipulation explicitly specified that the dismissal was with prejudice. See id. Entry of a

voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) divests a court of

further subject matter jurisdiction over the case. Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing

Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); O'Connor v. Colvin, 70 F.3d 530, 532 (9th

Cir.1995). This Court no longer has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's case and does not

have discretion to change the terms and conditions of the order of dismissal. Commercial

Space Mgmt. Co., 193 F.3d at 1077. The Plaintiff's request to proceed without counsel is

moot.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED DENYING the Plaintiff's Motion to Change Wording of

Stipulation to Dismiss (doc. 23) and DENYING the Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed Pro Se

(doc. 24).

DATED this 11th day of May, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01648-JAT Document 26 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 2