Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00951/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00951-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

The September 8, 2006, Stipulation of Dismissal has the 1

wrong caption since it does not reflect the caption of the Second

Amended Complaint filed March 23, 2006.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERT SALINAS, )

) 2:05-cv-0951-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER

v. )

)

RAFAEL AGUIRRE; MELVIN LAUB; )

EDWARD G. BAKER as Trustee of the )

1977 Baker Trust; ROSEMARIE )

BAKER, as Trustee of the 1977 )

Baker Trust; and DOES 1 through )

10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

1

)

On September 8, 2006, a stipulated dismissal of this action

with prejudice was filed (“September 8 Stipulation”), signed by

Plaintiff’s counsel on behalf of Plaintiff and by counsel for Gabriela

Aguirre and Rafael Aguirre. However, Defendant Gabriela Aguirre and

Cross-complainant Rafael Aguirre were dismissed from this action on

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 47 Filed 09/12/06 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

Other Defendants were also dismissed on March 23, 2006; 2

Defendant Gabriela Aguirre is the only Defendant who has ever

appeared in this action.

2

March 23, 2006. On the day Gabriela and Rafael Aguirre were 2

dismissed, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in which he

named other parties, none of whom have appeared. Therefore, the

September 8 Stipulation is between Plaintiff and dismissed

individuals. The Stipulation states that “[t]he parties . . .

stipulate to dismissal of this action in its entirety with prejudice

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). . . . The parties further

consent to and request that the Court retain jurisdiction over

enforcement of the [Settlement] Agreement.” (September8 Stipulation

at 1.) 

The Stipulation signed by Plaintiff is sufficient to dismiss

this action, since the Defendants named in the Second Amended

Complaint have not appeared in this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(a)(1)(i) (stating “an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff

without order of court . . . by filing a notice of dismissal at any

time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion

for summary judgment”). 

The September 8 “Stipulation” is a misnomer since Plaintiff

is the only appropriate party. Further, the September 8 Stipulation

erroneously assumes continuing jurisdiction will be exercised over a

settlement agreement which the Court has not seen. 

Since Plaintiff requests dismissal of this action with

prejudice, the action is dismissed with prejudice. Cf. Jessup v.

Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002) (stating “once a suit is

dismissed with prejudice the judge loses all power to enforce the

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 47 Filed 09/12/06 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

terms of the settlement that may lie behind that dismissal”); Oswalt

v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that

even when no formal dismissal is filed, the action can be dismissed

when a party requests dismissal);. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00951-GEB-GGH Document 47 Filed 09/12/06 Page 3 of 3