Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00761/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00761-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

Ernest W. Klatte, III (State Bar No. 115914)

eklatte@rutan.com

Shawn M. Larsen (State Bar No. 204439)

slarsen@rutan.com

Summer Young-Agriesti (State Bar No. 232883)

syoung@rutan.com

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

611 Anton Boulevard, Fourteenth Floor

Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931

Telephone: 714-641-5100

Facsimile: 714-546-9035

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHC SERVICES, INC. dba SUPPLEMENTAL

HEALTH CARE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRESNO DIVISION

SHC SERVICES, INC. dba

SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH CARE, a

Delaware corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALL HEALTH SERVICES,

CORPORATION, a California corporation;

ALL HEALTH SERVICES, LLC, a

California limited liability company;

ROBERT A. GARCIA, an individual;

DEBORAH G. MACKEY, an individual;

NADINE M. PEREZ-TURRIETTA,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:06-CV-00761-AWI-DLB

STIPULATION RE: DISMISSAL &

ORDER THEREON

Date Action Filed: June 15, 2006

Trial Date: October 2, 2007

Case 1:06-cv-00761-AWI-DLB Document 151 Filed 08/13/07 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

R u ta n & Tucke r, LLP

a tto rneys at la w

2310/022713-0004

836212.01 a08/10/07 -1-

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), Plaintiff SHC Services, Inc. dba

Supplemental Health Care (“SHC”) and Defendants All Health Services Corporation; All

Health Services, LLC; Robert A. Garcia; Deborah G. Mackey; and Nadine M. PerezTurrietta (collectively, the “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel, hereby

stipulate that this action shall be dismissed with prejudice. The Parties further stipulate

that each party shall bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs in this action.

Dated: August 10, 2007

RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP

ERNEST W. KLATTE, III

SHAWN M. LARSEN

By: /s/ Shawn Larsen

Shawn M. Larsen

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SHC SERVICES, INC. dba

SUPPLEMENTAL HEALTH CARE

Dated: August 10, 2007 McCORMICK BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH, LLP

GORDON M. PARK

DANA B. DENNO

By: /s/ Gordon Park

Gordon M. Park

Attorneys for Defendants

ALL HEALTH SERVICES CORP.; ALL

HEALTH SERVICES, LLC; ROBERT

A. GARCIA; DEBORAH G. MACKEY;

NADINE M. TURRIETTA

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

Case 1:06-cv-00761-AWI-DLB Document 151 Filed 08/13/07 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

R u ta n & Tucke r, LLP

a tto rneys at la w

2310/022713-0004

836212.01 a08/10/07 -2-

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 With Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 10, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00761-AWI-DLB Document 151 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 3