Free Order - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Phoenix Police Department, et al., 13 Defendant. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On September 14, 2006 Defendants Mendoza, Holmes, Nelson, Arpaio, Maricopa County "Correctional Health Services," and the Maricopa County "Board of Supervisors" ("Maricopa County Defendants") filed a Notice of Partial Settlement ("Notice") notifying the Court of a settlement with Plaintiff. (Doc. #61). Voluntary dismissal is governed by Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that "an action may be dismissed by the plaintiff without order of court . . . . by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared in the action." Subsection (2) also permits dismissal by order of the court "upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." Maricopa County Defendants' Notice is only signed by counsel for the Maricopa County Defendants; thus, it cannot, absent order of the court, constitute a dismissal. The Court notes that the Notice of Settlement was filed on September 15, 2006, and Plaintiff has yet to file an objection. The Court will allow Plaintiff an additional ten days
Document 65 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Krumlauf, Plaintiff, vs.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 04-720-PHX-ROS ORDER

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

from the date of this Order to file an objection or deem Plaintiff's failure to do so as a consent to the Notice. Plaintiff shall also notify the Court whether he intends to maintain this action against the Doe Defendants. The failure to comply with this Order will result in a dismissal of the action in its entirety.1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall respond to the Notice of Settlement (Doc. #61) and notify the Court of his intent to maintain this action against Does I through X and Roes I through X within ten days of this Order. The failure to do so shall result in a dismissal without further notice.

DATED this 18th day of October, 2006.

On October 5, 2006 the Court granted Defendant Meelhuysen's Motion For Summary Judgment. (Doc. #63). As of this date, only the Maricopa County Defendants and Defendants Does I through X and Roes I through X remain. -2Document 65 Filed 10/18/2006 Page 2 of 2

1

Case 2:04-cv-00720-ROS-LOA