Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00157-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:451 Employment Discrimination

---

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

STEPHEN JACKSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SCHERING-PLOUGH; SCHERING- )

PLOUGH HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS )

SALES CORPORATION; SCHERING- )

PLOUGH HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS, )

INC.; SCHERING SALES )

CORPORATION AND DOES 1 )

through 50, inclusive. )

)

DefendantS. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-06-0157 AWI DLB

ORDER DISMISSING

SCHERING-PLOUGH,

SCHERING-PLOUGH

HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS

SALES CORPORATION, AND

SCHERING-PLOUGH

HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS,

INC. DUE TO PLAINTIFF’S

RULE 41(a)(1)(ii)

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

On March 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice as to

only Defendants Schering-Plough, Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corporation, and

Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. The notice is signed by each party who has appeared

in this case.

Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 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,

Case 1:06-cv-00157-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 03/16/06 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

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. “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). “The plaintiff may dismiss some or all of the

defendants, or some or all of his claims, through a Rule 41(a)(1) notice,” and the dismissal

“automatically terminates the action as to the defendants who are the subjects of the notice.” 

Wilson, 111 F.3d at 692; Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493, 1506 (9th Cir. 1995). 

Because Plaintiff has filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice as to Defendants

Schering-Plough, Schering-Plough Healthcare Products Sales Corporation, and Schering-Plough

Healthcare Products, Inc. under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) that is signed by all parties who have made an

appearance, this case has terminated as to these Defendants. 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 Defendants Schering-Plough, ScheringPlough Healthcare Products Sales Corporation, and Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc.

are DISMISSED from this case in light of Plaintiff’s filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)

Voluntary Dismissal. This action will proceed as to Defendant Schering Sales Corporation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 15, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

Case 1:06-cv-00157-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 03/16/06 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

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00157-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 03/16/06 Page 3 of 3