Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05181/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05181-10/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

____________________________

Stipulated Dismissal and Order

Rosemary T. McGuire, Esq. Bar No. 172549

THE LAW FIRM OF

WEAKLEY, RATLIFF,

ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176

Fresno, California 93710

Telephone: (559) 221-5256

Facsimile: (559) 221-5262

Attorneys for Defendants, ERNEST J. LiCALSI, COUNTY OF MADERA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HONORIO QUIROZ,

Plaintiff

vs.

ERNEST J. LICALSI, and COUNTY OF

MADERA, A Municipal Corporation and

Public Entity, 

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV-F-03-5181 AWI SMS

STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff HONORIO

QUIROZ and defendants COUNTY OF FRESNO and ERNEST J. LICALSI, by and through

their attorneys of record, stipulate to dismissal of the entire action, with prejudice.

DATED: December 26, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN A. GERINGER

By: /s/ Steven A. Geringer 

Steven A. Geringer 

Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: December 23, 2005 WEAKLEY, RATLIFF, ARENDT & McGUIRE, LLP

By: /s/ Rosemary T. McGuire

Rosemary T. McGuire, 

Attorneys for Defendants COUNTY OF

MADERA and ERNEST J. LICALSI

Case 1:03-cv-05181-AWI -SMS Document 126 Filed 01/05/06 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

____________________________

Stipulated Dismissal and Order 2

ORDER

The parties seek dismissal of this action 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

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. 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. 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 this action is DISMISSED and the Clerk of

the Court is DIRECTED to close this case in light of the parties’ filed and signed Rule

41(a)(1)(ii) Stipulation For Dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05181-AWI -SMS Document 126 Filed 01/05/06 Page 2 of 2