Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06634/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06634-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

Federal Building, Room 3654

1130 “O” Street

Fresno, California 93721

Telephone: (559) 498-7272

Facsimile: (559) 498-7432

Attorneys for Defendant Anthony J. Principi, 

 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAYMOND LEGARRETA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, )

Secretary of the U.S. )

Department of Veterans )

Affairs, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:02-cv-06634-AWI-DLB

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

WITH PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO

SETTLEMENT; 

ORDER CLOSING CASE

Plaintiff RAYMOND LEGARRETA and Defendant Anthony J.

Principi, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs,

by and through undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to dismissal

of the action with prejudice, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement

entered into by the parties, effective November 3, 2005. Each

party shall bear their/its own costs. The parties request that

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:02-cv-06634-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement

Agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December _1__, 2005 McGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

By: /s/Brian W. Enos 

 

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant U.S. Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

Anthony J. Principi, Secretary

of the U.S. Department of

Veterans Affairs

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: December __6_, 2005

By: /s/Suzanne Kehde 

Suzanne Kehde

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Raymond LeGarreta

ORDER

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.

Case 1:02-cv-06634-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

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. “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 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

Case 1:02-cv-06634-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

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 close this

case in light of Plaintiff’s filed and properly signed Rule

41(a)(1)(ii) Stipulation For Dismissal With Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 8, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06634-AWI-DLB Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 4 of 4