Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00168/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00168-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

ISLAY INVESTMENTS, a California )

 Limited Partnership, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MCDONALDS CORPORATION, )

FRANCHISE REALITY INTERSTATE )

CORPORATION, and DOES 1 through )

50, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CIV- F-06-0168 AWI LJO (NEW DJ)

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN

LIGHT OF STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

On July 14, 2006, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The notice is signed by all parties that have

appeared in this case.

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.

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

Case 1:06-cv-00168-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 07/19/06 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

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). 

Because a stipulation for dismissal of this action with prejudice has been filed and signed

by all parties who have made an appearance, as required by Rule 41(a)(1)(ii), 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, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case in light of the filed and

properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal With Prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 18, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00168-AWI-LJO Document 9 Filed 07/19/06 Page 2 of 2