From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 11, 2016
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01542 --- JLT (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016)

Opinion

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01542 --- JLT

02-11-2016

ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMANY, Plaintiffs, v. CENTEX HOMES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER CLOSING CASE

On the February 9, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the matter. (Doc. 13) The stipulation relies upon Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, under which "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." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Once such a notice has been filed, an order of the Court is not required for the dismissal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this action in light of the notice of dismissal without prejudice filed and properly signed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11 , 2016

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Feb 11, 2016
Case No.: 1:15-cv-01542 --- JLT (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016)
Case details for

St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Centex Homes

Case Details

Full title:ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMANY, Plaintiffs, v. CENTEX HOMES, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Feb 11, 2016

Citations

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01542 --- JLT (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016)