Anago Franchising, Inc. v. SHAZ, LLC

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that a settlement agreement “does not require adjudication by the same court” that presided over the case from which the agreement arose
• holding that, unless otherwise stated, a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) dismissal “is self-executing and dismisses the case upon filing”
• stating that stipulations filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii) are self-executing and dismiss the case effective upon filing
• explaining that a stipulation under Rule 41(a) “becomes effective upon filing unless it explicitly conditions its effectiveness on a subsequent occurrence”
• explaining that, in determining whether party intended to voluntarily dismiss action, “the best indication of [a party’s] intent is the document itself”
• stating that “[t]he distinctions Rule 41(a)(1) draws between stipulations and notices are based on the stage of litigation during which they may be filed” and “find[ing] no reason” to treat the two differently for jurisdictional purposes

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).