Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01512/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01512-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

ANGELINA HERRERA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

WAL-MART STORES, INC., )

CORP a.k.a. AMTRAK, )

)

)

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-06-1512 AWI WMW

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN

LIGHT OF RULE 41(a)(1)

STIPULATION FOR

DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

On August 16, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice of this

action in light of a settlement. The notice indicates that it is made pursuant to Rule 41(b), which

deals with involuntary dismissals. However, the notice is signed by all parties and it does not

appear that any answers or summary judgment motions have been served in this case. The Court

construes the stipulation as made under Rule 41(a)(1).

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.

Dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1) are effective upon filing and no court order is required. See

Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999); Wilson v.

Case 1:06-cv-01512-AWI-LJO Document 25 Filed 08/27/07 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

City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997); In re Wolf, 842 F.2d 464, 466 (D.C. Cir.

1989); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986); Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co.,

747 F.2d 1180, 1189 (8th Cir. 1984). Because the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal

with prejudice that complies with Rule 41(a)(1), this case has terminated. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk close this case in light of parties’s 

filed Rule 41(a)(1) Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 27, 2007 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01512-AWI-LJO Document 25 Filed 08/27/07 Page 2 of 2