Smith v. Hardiman

United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas

Smith v. Hardiman

Trial Court Opinion

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

TERRY LEE SMITH PLAINTIFF

v. Case No. 1:23-cv-1075

LEKEDRICK PEUNDRE-DEQUAN HARDIMAN and JORDAN CARRIERS, INC. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Stipulation of Dismissal. ECF No. 10. The parties state that they have reached a settlement agreement and stipulate to dismissal of this matter with prejudice, with each parties bearing their own costs and fees. 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.,

747 F.2d 1180, 1189

(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. This case is 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. IT IS SO ORDERED, this 12th day of December, 2023.

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

Reference

Status
Unknown