Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00633/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00633-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LASHAWN BAREFIELD, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY,

BAKERSFIELD, a California Public Entity,

JIM GEORGE, an individual, DIANE

HENDRICKSON, an individual, MARK

MURIE, an individual, and DOES 1 through

50, inclusive,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CV-F-05-0633 AWI TAG

ORDER FOR VOLUNTARY

DISMISSAL OF DOES 

DEFENDANTS ONLY

On August 18, 2006, the parties, through their counsel of record, stipulated to dismiss

Defendants Does 1 through 50 inclusive in this matter.

The parties appear to seek dismissal of the Doe Defendants pursuant to Rule 41(a) 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

Case 1:05-cv-00633-AWI-TAG Document 68 Filed 08/24/06 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

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.

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)(ii); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. Because Plaintiff has filed a stipulation for dismissal as

to the Doe Defendants under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an

appearance, this matter has terminated against the Doe Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro.

41(a)(1)(ii); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d at 466; Gardiner, 747 F.2d at 1189; see also Gambale, 377 F.3d

at 139; Commercial Space Mgmt, 193 F.3d at 1077; cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, are

DISMISSED from this action in light of the parties’ filed and signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) stipulation

for dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00633-AWI-TAG Document 68 Filed 08/24/06 Page 2 of 2