UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 29, 2010
RUBEN MACIAS, MARTHA MACIAS, INDIVIDUALS, PLAINTIFFS,
WMC MORTGAGE CORP., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, DOES 1 THROUGH 20, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge
On April 28, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. # 34). The Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, which is signed by counsel for Plaintiffs and counsel for the sole remaining Defendant, WMC Mortgage Corp., states: "Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(ii) and Local Rule 7.2 the parties hereby jointly move the court to dismiss Defendant WMC MORTGAGE CORP., a California Corporation from this action with prejudice." (Doc. # 34 at 1).
After filing the Joint Stipulation for Dismissal, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint. (Doc. # 35).
Once the Joint Motion to Dismissal was filed, this action was dismissed automatically, without order of the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A). See United States v. Mercedes Benz, 547 F. Supp. 399, 400 (N.D. Cal. 1982) ("[T]he filing of a stipulation of dismissal is effective automatically and does not require judicial approval...."). "An unconditional dismissal terminates federal jurisdiction except for the limited purpose of reopening and setting aside the judgment of dismissal within the scope allowed by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 60(b)." McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1190 (7th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, the Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint.
The Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is not proper at this stage in the case. (Doc. # 35).
WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.