From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bahena v. Rohrdanz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 22, 2021
1:20-cv-00618-NONE-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2021)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00618-NONE-SKO (PC)

06-22-2021

ESMELING L. BAHENA, Plaintiff, v. D. ROHRDANZ, Defendant.


ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE CASE

SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The parties have filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Doc. 38.) The rule provides that a “plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing . . . a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Once a stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1) is properly filed, no order of the court is necessary to effectuate dismissal; the dismissal is effective automatically. See Com. Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1078 (9th Cir. 1999).

Because the parties have filed a stipulation of dismissal, signed by all parties or their counsel of record, this action has terminated. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close this case.

As set forth on the record during the settlement conference held on May 6, 2021, and pursuant to the parties' stipulation, (Doc. 38 at 2), the Court retains jurisdiction over the parties' settlement agreement to enforce its terms, including consideration of any motion related thereto, (see Doc. 37).

IT IS SO ORDERED..


Summaries of

Bahena v. Rohrdanz

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 22, 2021
1:20-cv-00618-NONE-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2021)
Case details for

Bahena v. Rohrdanz

Case Details

Full title:ESMELING L. BAHENA, Plaintiff, v. D. ROHRDANZ, Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 22, 2021

Citations

1:20-cv-00618-NONE-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 22, 2021)