D.M.
D.M. v. County of Merced
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
D.M., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-00409-JLT-SAB
Plaintiffs, ORDER AFFIRMING THE COURT’S
ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFFS’
v. NOTICE OF DISMISSAL AND DIRECTING
THE PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al., FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41 Defendants. (ECF Nos. 176, 178)
FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE
15 On November 11, 2024, Plaintiffs file a notice of voluntary dismissal, which was signed by only Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 176.) The Court initially disregarded the voluntary dismissal because it understood that the case involved minors, which would require compliance with Local Rule 202(b). (ECF No. 177.) On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a response indicating that a minor’s compromise was not needed in this action because while Plaintiffs D.M. and L.M. were minors when they initiated this action, at the time of the settlement was reached D.M. and L.M. were no longer minors. (ECF No. 178.) The Court agrees that since Plaintiffs D.M. and L.M. were not…