Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05790/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05790-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights 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

MATTHEW R. RAMOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF KERN, et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:03-CV-05790 TAG

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

(Doc. 56)

On August 7, 2006, the Court issued a Further Order on Petition for Order Approving

Compromise in the Matter of Matthew R. Ramos, an Incompetent Person. (Doc. 52). In that

Order, the Court required certain actions be performed by Guardian ad litem Mary Ramos and by

the parties in terms of final disposition of this case. These actions, set forth as follows, have now

been completed:

1. No later than August 18, 2006, all but $135,535.89 of funds in federal-court-blocked

bank accounts were to be transferred into federally-insured conservatorship accounts established

in the name of the conservatorship of the estate of Matthew R. Ramos, Kern County Superior

Court Case Number S-1500-PB-5301. (Doc. 52). Guardian ad litem Mary Ramos has, as

ordered, filed receipts with the Court showing proof of such transfer and deposit. (Doc.55).

2. No later than August 18, 2006, $135,535.89 of funds in federal-court-blocked bank

accounts were to be transferred to Kern County Superior Court and/or to segregated federallyinsured Kern County Superior Court-blocked bank accounts in the name of the conservatorship

estate of Matthew R. Ramos, Kern County Superior Court Case Number S-1500-PB-5301.

Case 1:03-cv-05790-TAG Document 57 Filed 08/22/06 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

(Doc. 52). Guardian ad litem Mary Ramos has, as ordered filed a receipt with the Court showing

proof of such transfer and deposit. (Doc. 54).

3. No later than August 18, 2006, file a copy of this Court’s Further Order on Petition for

Order Approving Compromise in the Matter of Matthew R. Ramos, an Incompetent Person, with

the Kern County Superior Court in Kern County Superior Court Case Number S-1500-PB-5301. 

(Doc. 52). Guardian ad litem Mary Ramos has, as ordered, filed proof of service thereof in this

action. (Doc. 53).

4. No later than August 21, 2006, file with this Court a fully-executed stipulation, signed

by all necessary parties, for an order dismissing this entire action. (Doc. 52). In accordance with

this requirement, the parties in this matter have now stipulated to dismiss the above-captioned

action with prejudice (Doc. 56). Dismissal of this action is sought 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 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 Assoc., 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. P. 41(a)(1)(ii). Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. Because Plaintiff has filed a stipulation for

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

have made an appearance, this case has terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii); In re Wolf,

842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co., 747 F.2d 1180, 1189

///

Case 1:03-cv-05790-TAG Document 57 Filed 08/22/06 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

(8th Cir. 1984); see also Gambale v. Deutsche Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2004);

Commercial Space Mgmt. v. Boeing., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); cf. Wilson, 111 F.3d

688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. This matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:03-cv-05790-TAG Document 57 Filed 08/22/06 Page 3 of 3