Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00346/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00346-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Data-Central Collection Bureau
Defendant
Mandy Marie Firat
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 June 10, 2015, the parties filed a motion to dismiss this case, but with a request for the 

Court to retain jurisdiction. The Court interprets the motion as a stipulation for dismissal with 

prejudice, but with retention of jurisdiction to enforce the settlement, pursuant to Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). See Doc. No. 45. The notice is signed by all parties who have appeared 

in this case.

Rule 41(a)(1), in relevant part, reads:

(A) . . . the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing: (i) a 

notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion 

for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who 

have appeared. . . . (B) Unless the notice or stipulation states otherwise, the 

dismissal is without prejudice. 

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(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. See Carter v. Beverly Hills Sav. & 

MANDY MARIE FIRAT ,

Plaintiff

v.

DATA-CENTRAL COLLECTION 

BUREAU,

Defendant

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-346 AWI SMS 

ORDER CLOSING CASE IN LIGHT OF 

STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL WITH 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 8)

Case 1:15-cv-00346-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/10/15 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

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)(A); 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). 

As the parties have filed a stipulation for dismissal of this case with prejudice under Rule 

41(a)(1) that is signed by all remaining parties who have made an appearance, this case has 

terminated. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(a)(1)(A)(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.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk is to CLOSE this case in light of the 

parties’ filed and properly signed Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) Stipulation Of Dismissal with prejudice, but 

as stipulated by the parties, the Court will retain jurisdiction in order to enforce, if necessary, the 

terms of the settlement agreement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00346-AWI-SMS Document 10 Filed 06/10/15 Page 2 of 2