IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EL DORADO DIVISION

CHRISTOPHER MANNING PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:21-cv-1045

HYDROSTATIC OIL TOOLS, INC. et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice. ECF No. 37. The parties seek to have the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants with prejudice and maintain jurisdiction for enforcing the settlement agreement and giving later approval of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. An action may be dismissed by “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). “Caselaw concerning stipulated dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is clear that the entry of such a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval.” Gardiner v. A.H. Robins Co.,

(8th Cir. 1984). Thus, all claims were effectively dismissed when the parties filed the instant stipulation. However, this order issues for the purpose of maintaining the Court’s docket. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. If any party desires that the terms of any settlement be a part of the record therein, those terms should be reduced to writing and filed with the Court within thirty (30) days of the entry of this judgment. The Court retains jurisdiction to vacate this order upon cause shown that any such settlement has not been completed and further litigation is necessary. The Court also retains jurisdiction for the potential approval of attorney’s fees and costs. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 5th day of April, 2023.

/s/ Susan O. Hickey Susan O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge