Estate of Maurice Monk v. County
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:22-cv-04037
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
Estate of Maurice Monk v. California Forensic Medical Group: Judge Hixson found the proposed dismissal improper because Kyse Monk had not signed it.
The ruling affects the proposed voluntary dismissal sought by Nia’ Amore Monk, WellPath, LLC, and California Forensic Medical Group; the stipulation could not accomplish dismissal because Kyse Monk had not signed it.
What happened
In Estate of Maurice Monk v. California Forensic Medical Group, Nia’ Amore Monk and defendants WellPath, LLC and California Forensic Medical Group filed a joint request to dismiss the case. The request was based on a written agreement signed by the parties who filed it.
The court treated the filing as a request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, which generally requires a dismissal agreement to be signed by every party who has appeared. The agreement was not signed by Plaintiff Kyse Monk.
The court ruled that the proposed dismissal was improper and did not approve it. The court explained that a corrected agreement signed by all appearing parties, or a separate dismissal motion addressing specified issues, could be filed. Judge Thomas S. Hixson issued the order.
The detailed version
- Estate of Maurice Monk v. County · No. 3:22-cv-04037
- Thomas Hixson
- June 6, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Nia’ Amore Monk, acting as co-successor-in-interest to the Estate of Maurice Monk and individually, and defendants WellPath, LLC and California Forensic Medical Group filed a stipulation and proposed order seeking voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). That rule allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared.
Court’s analysis
The court construed the filing as a request under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). It found that the joint stipulation was not signed by Plaintiff Kyse Monk. Because the required signatures were incomplete, the court ruled that dismissal through that stipulation was improper.
Ruling
The court did not approve the proposed dismissal. It stated that the plaintiff could seek dismissal by filing either a stipulation signed by all parties who have appeared under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) or a motion under Rule 41(a)(2). If the plaintiff files a Rule 41(a)(2) motion, the motion must comply with Civil Local Rule 7 and address whether dismissal should be allowed, whether it should be with or without prejudice, and what terms or conditions should apply. The order did not itself decide whether dismissal would be with or without prejudice.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.