1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CINDY FOURNIER, Case No. 1:21-cv-01479-EPG 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF

DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS

13 JAG ONE, INC., WITH PREJUDICE 14 Defendant. (ECF No. 16) 15 16 On February 4, 2022, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 14), the Court 17 approved the parties’ proposed consent decree and order for injunctive relief, and, further noting 18 that the parties had otherwise settled all other matters, i.e., Plaintiff’s claims for damages, 19 attorneys’ fees, and litigation expenses, directed the Clerk to close this action. (ECF No. 15). 20 However, on February 24, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), requesting “that the Court order that all of Plaintiff’s claims in this action against 22 Defendant be dismissed with prejudice.” (ECF No. 16, p. 1) (emphasis added). 23 In light of the parties’ stipulation, the Clerk is directed to reopen this action for the sole 24 purpose of entering this order, which reflects that the parties have stipulated that all of Plaintiff’s 25 claims in this action against Defendant have been dismissed with prejudice.1 26

27 1 While the parties request that the Court order that all of Plaintiff’s claims in this action against Defendant be dismissed with prejudice, a stipulation of dismissal is automatically effective and 28 does not require Court approval via an order. See Martinez v. Lunes, No. 1:04CV05251-AWI- 1 After entering this order, the Clerk is directed to again close this case. > IT IS SO ORDERED. 3] Dated: _ February 25, 2022 □□□ hey 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 | SMS, 2008 WL 5178565, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008). Rather, the Court’s orders regarding stipulations of dismissal are more for the purpose of confirming the parties’ stipulation on the 28 | record and directing the Clerk to administratively close the case.