Cross v. Gary City of et al, No. 2:2017cv00389 - Document 46 (N.D. Ind. 2019)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER: The Joint STIPULATION to Dismiss filed by City of Gary, 44 , is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff and Defendant City of Gary are ORDERED to make their next filing in this matter on or before 12/16/2019. Signed by Chief Judge Theresa L Springmann on 12/2/2019. (lhc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cross v. Gary City of et al Doc. 46 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA HAMMOND DIVISION PRINCESS CROSS, Plaintiff, vs. THE CITY OF GARY and OFFICER HUDSON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CAUSE NO.: 2:17-CV-389-TLS OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a Joint Stipulation for Dismissal [ECF No. 44] filed by the Plaintiff, Princess Cross, and Defendant, the City of Gary. The Parties submitted this filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 but did not specify which provision of Rule 41 they intend to rely on. If presented appropriately, a joint motion to dismiss the case could be granted under Rule 41(a)(2). See Gatling v. Nickel, 275 F.R.D. 495 (E.D. Wis. 2011) (construing Rule 41(a)(2) to grant Courts the authority to dismiss individual claims at the request of both parties). But this filing is styled as a “stipulation.” And the only provision of Rule 41 that refers to a “stipulation” is 41(a)(1), which is not applicable here because the Parties seek only to dismiss the claims against Defendant City of Gary and not the entire action. See Berthold Types Ltd. v. Adobe Sys. Inc., 242 F.3d 772, 776 (7th Cir. 2001) (noting that Rule 41(a)(1) speaks in terms of dismissing an action, not a claim); see also Gatling, 275 F.R.D. at 496. The Joint Stipulation for Dismissal [ECF No. 44] is therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff and Defendant City of Gary are ORDERED to make their next filing in this matter on or before December 16, 2019. SO ORDERED on December 2, 2019. s/ Theresa L. Springmann Dockets.Justia.com CHIEF JUDGE THERESA L. SPRINGMANN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
