Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01981/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01981-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN ARIZAGA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN BEAN TECHNOLOGIES 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

1:13-cv-01981 MJS HC

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ACTION

(ECF No. 71)

On September 7, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The notice is signed by 

all remaining parties who have appeared in this case.

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) 

a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or 

a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by 

all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation 

states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) thus allows the parties to dismiss an action voluntarily, after 

service of an answer, by filing a written stipulation to dismiss signed by all of the parties 

who have appeared, although an oral stipulation in open court will also suffice. See

Case 1:13-cv-01981-MJS Document 72 Filed 09/13/16 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

Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & Loan Asso., 884 F.2d 1186, 1191 (9th Cir. 1989); Eitel v. 

McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986). Once the stipulation between the 

parties who have appeared is properly filed or made in open court, no order of the court 

is necessary to effectuate dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 

1473 n.4. "Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a) (1) (ii) is clear 

that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically a nd does not 

require judicial approval." In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466, 268 U.S. App. D.C. 468 (D.C. 

Cir. 1989); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984); see also

Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space 

Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999) cf. Wilson v. City of San 

Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (addressing Rule 41(a)(1)(i) dismissals).

As the parties have signed and filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with 

prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1), this case is terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 

41(a)(l)(A)(ii).

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is to CLOSE this case in light 

of the parties' filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(l)(A)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal with 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01981-MJS Document 72 Filed 09/13/16 Page 2 of 2