Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00977/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00977-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wade Reeves
Plaintiff
Transworld Systems Inc.
Defendant

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Wade Reeves,

Plaintiff,

v.

Transworld Systems Inc.,

Defendant.

No. 1:15-cv-00977-GEB-BAM

ORDER

On December 1, 2015, defense counsel emailed the 

undersigned judge’s courtroom deputy requesting the Court 

“Vacate the Notice of Acceptance of Offer of Judgement [sic] 

(dkt. 12) as requested in the [parties’] Stipulation [and 

proposed order] filed on 11/16/2015 (dkt. 15).” 

However, on November 17, 2015, the parties filed a 

“Stipulation to Dismiss Entire Case, With Prejudice,” which 

effectuated dismissal of this action under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (ECF No. 16.)

[T]he plain language of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 

requires that a stipulation filed pursuant to 

that subsection is self-executing and 

dismisses the case upon its becoming 

effective. . . . District courts need not and

may not take action after the stipulation 

becomes effective because the stipulation 

dismisses the case and divests the district 

court of jurisdiction.

Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th 

Cir. 2012) (emphasis added); see also De Leon v. Marcos 659 F.3d 

Case 1:15-cv-00977-GEB-BAM Document 18 Filed 12/11/15 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

1276, 1284 (10th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he district court’s order 

granting [the defendant’s] motion to dismiss on the merits is 

void because it was issued after the stipulation was filed and 

therefore in the absence of jurisdiction.”); cf. Wilson v. City 

of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (discussing effect 

of voluntary dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), 

stating: “[t]he filing of a notice of voluntary dismissal . . .

automatically terminates the action”). 

Since the parties have not shown that the Court has 

jurisdiction to consider their request, it is denied. 

Dated: December 10, 2015

Case 1:15-cv-00977-GEB-BAM Document 18 Filed 12/11/15 Page 2 of 2