Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06420/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06420-7/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

Jacob J. Rivas, No. 208504

MARDEROSIAN, RUNYON, CERCONE, 

 LEHMAN & ARMO

1260 Fulton Mall

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 441-7991

Facsimile: (559) 441-8170

Attorneys for: Defendants CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, BAKERSFIELD POLICE DEPT., CHIEF

WILLIAM RECTOR, FORMER CHIEF STEVEN BRUMMER, FORMER CHIEF

ERIC MATLOCK, OFFICERS S. PARKER, R. RIDDLE, R. RICE, M.

EASTMAN, M. PFLUGH, R. ROBISON, M. COTTLE, B. HILL, S. MILLER, G.

JEHLE, B. HERRERA, J. GOMEZ, SGT. T. PRYOR, SGT. ENNIS, DETS. S.

CARVEL, B. NORRIS, A. GARNER, present or former members of the

BAKERSFIELD CITY COUNCIL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT

LARRY MOLINA, MICHAEL SMITH, and

RUDY YORK, individually and on behalf of

a Class of Persons similarly situated, JOHN

DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2, JOHN DOE 3, and

JOHN DOE 4,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF BAKERSFIELD, BAKERSFIELD

POLICE DEPT., CHIEF WILLIAM

RECTOR, FORMER CHIEF STEVEN

BRUMMER, FORMER CHIEF ERIC

MATLOCK, OFFICER S. PARKER, Badge

No. 628, OFFICER R. RIDDLE Badge No.

603, OFFICER R. RICE, Badge No. 735,

OFFICER M. EASTMAN, badge No. 682,

OFFICER M. PFLUGH, Badge No. 563,

OFFICER R. ROBISON, Badge No. 664,

OFFICER M. M. COTTLE, Badge No. 677,

OFFICER B. HILL, Badge No. 687,

OFFICER S. MILLER, OFFICER G. JEHLE,

OFFICER B. HERRERA, OFFICER J.

GOMEZ, SGT. T. PRYOR, SGT. ENNIS,

DET. S. CARVEL, DET. B. NORRIS, DET.

A. GARNER, IRMA CARSON, SUE

BENHAM, MIKE MAGGARD, DAVID

COUCH, KEVIN MCDERMOTT, HAROLD

HANSEN, JACQUIE SULLIVAN,

PATRICIA M. SMITH, GALEN B. CHOW,

and MARK SALVAGGIO, all as present or

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CIV-F-04-6420 AWI TAG

STIPULATED DISMISSAL AND

ORDER

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 51 Filed 08/24/06 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

2

former members of the BAKERSFIELD

CITY COUNCIL, and DOES I through X,

inclusive,

Defendants.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, through

their respective counsel, that all defendants and the above-entitled action herein be dismissed with

prejudice.

Dated: August 21, 2006 MARDEROSIAN, RUNYON, CERCONE

 LEHMAN & ARMO

/s/ Jacob J. Rivas, Esq.

By:

 JACOB J. RIVAS,

 Attorney for defendants above-named.

Dated: August 21, 2006

/s/ Bruce W. Nickerson, Esq.

By: __________________________________

 BRUCE W. NICKERSON

 Attorney for Plaintiffs

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

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 51 Filed 08/24/06 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

3

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 With Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 24, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06420-AWI-TAG Document 51 Filed 08/24/06 Page 3 of 3