Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00807-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Tort Action

---

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

NATIONAL RAILROAD )

PASSENGER CORPORATION, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

ADMIRAL MERCHANTS MOTOR )

FREIGHT, INC., ROGER )

CREVISTON, COUNTY OF MERCED, ) 

and ATWATER ELECTRIC, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

)

)

AND RELATED CROSS ACTIONS. )

)

____________________________________)

CV F 05-0807 AWI DLB

ORDER DISMISSING ATWATER

ELECTRIC

(Document #93)

On January 3, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation of dismissal of the complaint and crosscomplaints against Atwater Electric, only, 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.

Case 1:05-cv-00807-AWI-DLB Document 94 Filed 01/11/07 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

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). “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 v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692

(9th Cir. 1997); Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Because Plaintiff, Cross-Claimants, and Counter-Claimants have filed a stipulation for

dismissal with prejudice as to Atwater Electric under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) that is signed by all parties

who have made an appearance, this case has terminated as to Atwater Electric. Therefore, IT

IS HEREBY ORDERED that Atwater Electric is DISMISSED from this action, each party to

bear its own costs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00807-AWI-DLB Document 94 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 2