Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00901/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00901-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 891
Nature of Suit: Agricultural Acts
Cause of Action: 07:499 Agricultural Commodities 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KINGSBURG APPLE PACKERS, INC., )

d/b/a KINGSBURG ORCHARDS, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

v. )

)

BALLANTINE PRODUCE CO., INC., )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

LAMANUZZI & PANTALEO, LLC, )

)

Intervenor Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

BALLANTINE PRODUCE CO., INC., and )

VIRGIL E. RASMUSSEN, DAVID S. )

ALBERTSON, ERIC ALBERTSON, )

JERRY DiBUDUO, and BABIJUICE )

CORP OF CALIFORNIA, INC., each )

individually, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

NO. 1:09-CV-00901-AWI-JLT

ORDER DISMISSING

INTERVENOR COMPLAINT IN

LIGHT OF STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL

On March 16, 2010, the Intervenor Plaintiff filed a stipulation of dismissal of the

intervenor complaint, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii). The stipulation is signed

by all parties in this case. 

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 164 Filed 03/17/10 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

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, 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. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a) (1) (ii) is clear

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

judicial approval.” In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (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 41(a)(1)(i)). 

“The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a

Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal “automatically terminates the action as to the defendants

who are the subjects of the notice.” Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493,

1506 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Because the parties have filed a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) as to only the

intervenor complaint that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has

terminated as to the intervenor complaint only. 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. 

2

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 164 Filed 03/17/10 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

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the intervenor complaint is DISMISSED

from this case without prejudice in light of the parties’s filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)

voluntary dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 17, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00901-AWI-JLT Document 164 Filed 03/17/10 Page 3 of 3