Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00570/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00570-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

On August 9, 2016, Plaintiffs and Defendant the City of Visalia filed a stipulated dismissal 

of the City of Visalia only. See Doc. No. 21. Although other defendants have filled answers, no 

other defendant signed the stipulation. To date, no other defendant has responded or objected to 

the August 9 stipulation. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) “allows plaintiffs voluntarily to dismiss some or all 

of their claims against some or all defendants.” Romoland Sch. Dist. v. Inland Empire Energy 

Ctr., LLC, 548 F.3d 738, 748 (9th Cir. 2008). Where a defendant has served an answer, but has 

not signed a stipulation to dismiss, a plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of an “action” must be effected 

through Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a); Wilson v. City of 

San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1999); Local 2-1971 of PACE Intl. Union v. Cooper, 364 

F.Supp.2d 546, 551 (W.D. N.C. 2005); Sullivan b. Bankhead Enterprises, Inc., 108 F.R.D. 378, 

382 (D. Mass. 1985). Rule 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided in Rule 

41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that 

the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2). “A district court should grant a motion for 

voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain 

legal prejudice as a result.” Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001).

R.R. a minor by and through his guardian 

ad litem Debra Ruiz, et al.,

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF TULARE, et al.,

Defendant.

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-0570 AWI SKO 

ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 

CITY OF VISALIA

(Doc. No. 21)

Case 1:16-cv-00570-SKO Document 22 Filed 08/17/16 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

Here, this case is in the early stages of litigation. No other defendant has objected or 

responded to the stipulated dismissal of the City of Visalia. Given the time that has now passed, 

the Court will view stipulation as being unopposed. So viewing the stipulation, there is no reason 

apparent to deny the stipulated dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(2); Smith, 263 F.3d at 975.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), Defendant the 

City of Visalia is DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00570-SKO Document 22 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2