Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00856/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00856-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 8:1446 Petition for Naturalization Hearing

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASSEM TORABI, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of )

 Homeland Security, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 06-0856 AWI SMS

ORDER REQUESTING

DEFENDANTS TO INFORM THE

COURT WHETHER THEY ARE

WILLING TO STIPULATE TO THE

DISMISSAL OF THIS ACTION

On October 3, 2006, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule

41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

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

an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court (i) 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, whichever first occurs, or (ii) by filing a

stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action.

Unless otherwise stated in the notice of dismissal or stipulation, the dismissal is

without prejudice, except that a notice of dismissal operates as an adjudication

upon the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of

the United States or of any state an action based on or including the same claim.

Rule 41(a)(1)(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. 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.

Case 1:06-cv-00856-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 02/22/07 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

1986). 

On September 11, 2006, Defendants filed an answer in this action. However, Plaintiff’s

October 3, 2006 notice of dismissal did not contain Defendants’ signature. Because a stipulation

for dismissal has not been signed by all parties who have made an appearance in this action, as

required by Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), this court cannot terminate this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)

based on Plaintiff’s request. However, if Defendants notify the court that they agree to stipulate

to dismiss this action, the court can dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1).

Accordingly, Defendants are ORDERED to inform the court within fifteen days whether

they are willing to stipulate to the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00856-AWI -SMS Document 16 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2