Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01302/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01302-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Continental Casualty Company
Defendant
Group Long Term Disability Insurance Plan for Pandol Bros., Inc.
Defendant
Deborah Roth
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

- 1 -

STIP AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

FRANK N. DARRAS #128904

MICHAEL B. HORROW #162917

SHERNOFF BIDART & DARRAS, LLP

Suite 300

3257 East Guasti Road

Ontario, CA 91761

Telephone: 909.390.3770

Facsimile: 909.974.2121

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEBORAH ROTH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY;

GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY

INSURANCE PLAN FOR PANDOL

BROS., INC.

Defendant

Case No.: 1:05-CV-01302-AWI-SMS

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE

ACTION WITH PREJUDICE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BY AND BETWEEN plaintiff DEBORAH ROTH,

and defendant CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; GROUP LONG TERM

DISABILITY INSURANCE PLAN FOR PANDOL BROS., INC. and their attorneys of

record, that the parties have resolved this matter in its entirety.

Case 1:05-cv-01302-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/13/06 Page 1 of 3
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 -

STIP AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY AGREED that the complaint and any counterclaim on file herein

shall be dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees and costs.

Dated: July 3, 2006 SHERNOFF BIDART & DARRAS, LLP

 /s/ Michael B. Horrow

MICHAEL B. HORROW

Attorneys for Plaintiff: DEBORAH ROTH

Dated: July 11, 2006 KELLY, HERLIHY & KLEIN, LLP

 /s/ Thomas K. Hockel 

THOMAS K. HOCKEL

Attorneys for Defendants

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY; GROUP

LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE PLAN FOR

PANDOL BROS., INC.

O R D E R

The parties seek dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. 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

Case 1:05-cv-01302-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 -

STIP AND ORDER RE DISMISSAL

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 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. 

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 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 this action is DISMISSED and the

Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case in light of the parties’ filed and signed

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01302-AWI -SMS Document 21 Filed 07/13/06 Page 3 of 3