Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00553/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00553-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN BARRETT

MARIA BARRETT,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BIOMET, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 1:19-CV-00553-NONE-EPG

ORDER DIRECTING ASSIGNMENT 

OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR 

PURPOSES OF CLOSING CASE AND 

THEN TO CLOSE THIS CASE IN 

LIGHT OF STIPULATION FOR 

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 

On February 4, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with 

prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). See Doc. No. 17. The notice is 

signed by all parties who have appeared in this case.

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

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: 

(i) a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer 

or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed 

by all parties who have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation 

states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(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. See 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)(A); 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, 

Case 1:19-cv-00553-DAD-EPG Document 20 Filed 02/10/20 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

377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 

1077 (9th Cir. 1999).

As the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under Rule 

41(a)(1) that is signed by all parties who have made an appearance, this case has terminated. See 

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(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.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to assign a 

district judge to this case for the purpose of closing the case and then to CLOSE THIS CASE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00553-DAD-EPG Document 20 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2