Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00469-20/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

LAVETTE SANDERS, individually and )

as guardian ad litem for the estate of ) 

Michael Sanders, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

THE CITY OF FRESNO a municipality; )

THE COUNTY OF FRESNO, a )

municipality; TASER )

INTERNATIONAL, Inc. a corporation )

doing business in California; JERRY )

DYER, an individual; RICHARD PAUL )

BROWN, an individual, ELOY )

ESCARANEO, an individual, JESSE )

HERRING, an individual, BEAU )

BURGER, and DOES 5 through 10, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

1:05-CV-469 AWI SMS

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN

LIGHT OF STIPULATION

FOR DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

After the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the Fresno Defendants,

the only remaining Defendant is Taser International. On February 5, 2010, Plaintiff and Taser

International filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of this case pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The notice is signed by all remaining parties who have appeared in

this case.

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a

notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 165 Filed 02/08/10 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

for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who

have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the

dismissal is without prejudice. 

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(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. See 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)(A); Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1473 n.4. “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule

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). 

As the remaining parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case under Rule

41(a)(1) that is signed by all remaining parties who have made an appearance, this case has

terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(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 to CLOSE this case in light of

the parties’s filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1) Stipulation Of Dismissal with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2010 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-00469-AWI -SMS Document 165 Filed 02/08/10 Page 2 of 2