Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06719/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06719-11/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TARAH JOY JOHNSON; KELLY

JENNINGS; ALEXA N. KOURAFAS;

MEREDITH L. FARMER; AMI L.

LOWREY; MARISSA HARVEY;

DANIELLE HOFFMAN; NATALIE

GREGORIO; and ROBIN MATTHEWS,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT;

JOSEPH NIETO; and DOES 1-25,

Defendants.

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1: 04-CV-6719-AWI-DLB

ORDER APPROVING

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO CLOSE THIS ACTION

(Document #62)

On October 1, 2007, Plaintiffs and Defendant Clovis Unified School District (“Clovis

Unified”) filed a stipulation of dismissal of Clovis Unified from this action. In an order

accompanying this order, the court has granted Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal of

Defendant Joseph Nieto (“Nieto”), the other named Defendant.

Plaintiffs and Clovis Unified seek dismissal of this action against Clovis Unified pursuant

to Rule 41(a)(1) 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

Case 1:04-cv-06719-AWI-DLB Document 64 Filed 10/24/07 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

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. 

Nieto has been dismissed from this action. Because Plaintiffs have filed a stipulation for

dismissal with prejudice as to Clovis Unified pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) that is signed by the

only named Defendant remaining in this case, Clovis Unified, 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:

1. Plaintiffs’ and Clovis Unified’s stipulation of dismissal with prejudice is

APPROVED;

2. Clovis Unified is DISMISSED from this action with prejudice;

3. All named Defendants having been dismissed from this action, the Clerk

of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 23, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06719-AWI-DLB Document 64 Filed 10/24/07 Page 2 of 2