ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE A JOINT REPORT EXPLAINING WHY THE COURT SHOULD RETAIN JURISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT AND HOW LONG THE COURT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO RETAIN JURISDICTION

(ECF No. 20)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

On June 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. On April 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 16.) On April 12, 2018, the parties were ordered to file dispositional documents. (ECF No. 17.) On June 11, 2018, the parties were granted a stipulation to extend the time to file dispositional documents. (ECF No. 19.)

On July 12, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation for dismissal of the action with prejudice.1 (ECF No. 20.) The parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement, but do not explain why. Since it is rare that the Court retain jurisdiction, it is unclear why the Court would retain jurisdiction over the settlement contract and any breach of that contract when the settlement was not reached at a settlement conference that the Court conducted. The Court notes that the parties have not consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge, so this case is assigned to a United States District Judge. This Court is one of the busiest courts in the country and the Court sees no need to tie up two judges with retention of jurisdiction without good cause. Additionally, the parties should address how long the Court would be expected to retain jurisdiction.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a joint report on or before July 20, 2018, explaining why the Court should retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and how long the Court would be expected to retain jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.