Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01123/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01123-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:0605 Communications Act of 1934

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

J & J Sports Productions, Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

Martin Garcia Velazquez, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-01123-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint Against Defendants Martin Garcia Velazquez, individually and d/b/a Los

Tucanes Mexican Food; and Los Tucanes Mexican Food, LLC, an unknown

business entity d/b/a Los Tucanes Mexican Food (Doc. 15). Having considered the

stipulation, which the parties state is made pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1), the

Court finds that the stipulation is insufficient to automatically effect the dismissal of

this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) because it specifically conditions

its effectiveness on a subsequent occurrence. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz,

LLC, 677 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir.2012).

 The stipulation states that the dismissal of the action is without prejudice

“subject to the Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement reached by

Case 2:13-cv-01123-PGR Document 16 Filed 10/04/13 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

1

While the Court realizes that it has accepted this type of stipulation

provision in the past from the plaintiff’s counsel without comment, the Court is no

longer willing to do so.

- 2 -

the Parties[,]” which retention of jurisdiction is apparently needed because the

parties also stipulated that the dismissal would be with prejudice if “no Party

referenced above has filed a motion to reopen this action by August 20, 2014[.]” The

Court finds this to be unacceptable because Rule 41(a)(1) does not permit parties

to reopen an existing action after it has been dismissed, and because the stipulation

provides no reason why the Court should retain jurisdiction over the parties’

settlement agreement and the Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declines to do

so.1 See Arata v. Nu Skin International, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir.1996)

(“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercising continuing

jurisdiction [over a settlement agreement] is not binding on the court.”)

Furthermore, the stipulation is in any case ineffective to effectuate the

dismissal of defendant Los Tucanes Mexican Food, LLC because the stipulation was

signed on that defendant’s behalf by defendant Martin Garcia Velazquez, a nonattorney, as the company’s “authorized representative” notwithstanding that it is wellestablished that a non-attorney may not appear in federal court on behalf of a limited

liability company. See Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 140 (2nd Cir. 2007) (Court

held that a limited liability company, even one solely-owned, may appear in federal

court only through a licensed attorney.) Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint Against Defendants Martin Garcia Velazquez, individually and d/b/a Los

Tucanes Mexican Food; and Los Tucanes Mexican Food, LLC, an unknown

business entity d/b/a Los Tucanes Mexican Food (Doc. 15) is rejected by the Court

Case 2:13-cv-01123-PGR Document 16 Filed 10/04/13 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

- 3 -

without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appropriate stipulation of dismissal or an

appropriate notice of voluntary dismissal shall be filed no later than October 31,

2013.

DATED this 4th day of October, 2013.

Case 2:13-cv-01123-PGR Document 16 Filed 10/04/13 Page 3 of 3