Ennis v. 14th & Commercial CIC-FHHP,LP

United States District Court for the Southern District of California

Ennis v. 14th & Commercial CIC-FHHP,LP

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTINA ENNIS, MICHAEL Case No. 23-cv-1316-BAS-AHG MENDEZ, and MAURICE TRULL, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF No. 43) v. 14 14th & COMMERCIAL CIC-FHHP, LP 15 dba ST. TERESA OF CALCUTTA APARTMENTS, ROYAL PROPERTY 16 MANAGEMENT GROUP, HYDER PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 17 PROFESSIONALS LLC,

18 Defendants. 19 20 On March 19, 2024, Third-Party Plaintiff Level 10 Construction, LP and Third- 21 Party Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation submitted a joint stipulation for dismissal 22 of the instant action without prejudice. (ECF No. 43 (the “Stipulation”).) 23 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff has an 24 absolute right to voluntarily dismiss his action by (1) filing a notice of voluntary dismissal 25 before a defendant has filed an answer or moved for summary judgment, see Rule 26 41(a)(1)(A)(i), or (2) filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have 27 appeared, see Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See also Wilson v. City of San Jose,

111 F.3d 688

, 692 28 (9th Cir. 1997). Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) is effective upon the filing of a 1 compliant notice or stipulation. No court order is required. See Stone v. Woodford, CIV- 2 || F-05-845 AWI-DLB,

2007 WL 527766

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 16, 2007). Nonetheless, the local 3 || civil rules of this district require that where, as here, litigants seek voluntary dismissal by 4 || filing a signed stipulation pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i1), such a stipulation must be filed 5 a joint motion.! 6 In the interests of justice and judicial economy, the Court shall construe the parties’ 7 || Stipulation as the requisite joint motion. Accordingly, the Court, having considered the 8 || Stipulation, and for good cause shown, hereby DISMISSES Level 10 Construction’s third- 9 ||party complaint against Schindler Elevator Corporation. This dismissal is without 10 || prejudice. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 ) 13 || DATED: March 25, 2024 Lin A (Lyohaa 6 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || ——_—— 28 See Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 4.

Reference

Status
Unknown