Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01127/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01127-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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

FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL )

AND MEDICAL CENTER, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

WESTERN GROWERS ASSN., )

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-07-1127 AWI SMS

ORDER CLOSING CASE DUE

TO STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL

On March 28, 2008, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal of this matter

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii). 

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

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

Case 1:07-cv-01127-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 03/31/08 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

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 Rule 41(a)(1)(I) dismissals). “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 stipulation for dismissal of this case 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. 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 the Clerk is ordered to close this case in light

of the filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 31, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01127-AWI -SMS Document 14 Filed 03/31/08 Page 2 of 2