Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01543/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01543-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
PTN Inc.
Defendant
Pro Travel Network
Defendant
Vincent Khoury Tylor
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

VINCENT KHOURY TYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

v.

PTN, INC. dba PRO TRAVEL NETWORK 

and DOES 1-10,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:15-cv-01543-SKO

ORDER STRIKING STIPULATION FOR 

DISMISSAL 

(Doc. 34)

On April 19, 2016, Plaintiff Vincent Khoury Tylor (“Plaintiff”) filed a “Stipulation for

Dismissal” (Doc. 34) stating that the case has been settled and requesting, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 41(a)(2)1, that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice as to Defendant PTN Inc., dba Pro 

Travel Network (“Defendant”) and without prejudice as to the Doe Defendants. The Stipulation 

indicates it is submitted by Plaintiff and Defendant “though their respective counsel of record,”

and is signed by Plaintiff’s counsel Adam I. Gafni and Jessica Henderson, the Chief Operating 

Officer of Defendant.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), “the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a 

court order by filing. . . .a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” 

Defendant, a corporate entity, “may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel.”

 

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) governs voluntary dismissals by court order, in the absence of a stipulation of dismissal. 

Since Plaintiff filed a “Stipulation for Dismissal,” the Court assumes that he intended to proceed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which authorizes dismissal of an action without a court order “by filing a stipulation of dismissal 

signed by all parties who have appeared.”

Case 1:15-cv-01543-SKO Document 35 Filed 04/21/16 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

Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993); United States v. High Country Broad. 

Co., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); see also Osborn v. Bank of U.S., 22 U.S. (9 

Wheat.) 738, 829 (1824). All artificial entities must appear in federal court through counsel. 

Rowland, 506 U.S. at 202. Additionally, Local Rule 183(a) provides: “A corporation or other 

entity may appear only by an attorney.”

Presently there is no counsel of record for Defendant. Moreover, there is no indication that 

Ms. Henderson, who signed the Stipulation in her capacity as Defendant’s Chief Operating

Officer, is a licensed attorney authorized to appear on behalf of Defendant. Because Defendant 

cannot sign a stipulation of dismissal on its own behalf, the Court finds the parties’ Stipulation of 

Dismissal is defective and orders it STRICKEN from the docket.

In the event that Defendant is unwilling or unable to obtain counsel through which it may 

stipulate to Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal, Plaintiff may file his request for dismissal under Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), which authorizes the Court to dismiss an action “at the plaintiff’s request only 

by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01543-SKO Document 35 Filed 04/21/16 Page 2 of 2