Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00074/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cislyn Blackwood
Plaintiff
Community Hospitals of Central California
Defendant
Community Medical Centers Employee Benefit Plan
Defendant
Sun Life Assurance Company
Defendant
Sun Life Financial
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CISLYN BLACKWOOD, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY )

OF CANADA, SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, )

COMMUNITY HOSPITALS OF )

CENTRAL CALIFORNIA dba )

COMMUNITY MEDICAL CENTERS )

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLAN and )

DOES 1 through 10, )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:08-CV-0074 AWI GSA

ORDER CONCERNING

PLAINTIFF’S APRIL 4, 2008

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

On April 4, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant Sun Life Financial

and Defendant Community Hospitals of Central California dba Community Medical Centers

Employee Benefit Plan pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii). The notice is signed by Plaintiff’s attorney

but not signed by any of the Defendants. 

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. . . . .

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, although an oral

Case 1:08-cv-00074-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 04/07/08 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

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). 

In this action, Plaintiff has filed a notice of dismissal of Defendant Sun Life Financial and

Defendant Community Hospitals of Central California dba Community Medical Centers

Employee Benefit Plan. However, all parties who have made an appearance in this case have

not stipulated to Defendant Sun Life Financial’s and Defendant Community Hospitals of Central

California dba Community Medical Centers Employee Benefit Plan’s dismissal. On March 10,

2008, Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada filed an answer. There is no

indication that Defendant Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada stipulates to the dismissal of

the other defendants. Thus, Plaintiff’s April 4, 2008 notice of dismissal is not sufficient to

dismiss Defendant Sun Life Financial and Defendant Community Hospitals of Central California

dba Community Medical Centers Employee Benefit Plan from this action.

Therefore, Plaintiff is ORDERED to file a stipulation of dismissal of Defendant Sun Life

Financial and Defendant Community Hospitals of Central California, dba Community Medical

Centers Employee Benefit Plan that complies with Rule 41. All parties are advised that

Defendant Sun Life Financial and Defendant Community Hospitals of Central California, dba

Community Medical Centers Employee Benefit Plan have not been dismissed from this action. 

Plaintiff’s April 4, 2008 notice of dismissal SHALL be DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 7, 2008 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00074-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 04/07/08 Page 2 of 2