Bryant v. Train Depot, Inc., 1:17-cv-01459-DAD-SKO. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180209951
Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 08, 2018
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE (Doc. 10) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On February 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice. 1 (Doc. 10.) In light of the parties' stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688 , 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE (Doc. 10) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On February 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice. 1 (Doc. 10.) In light of the parties' stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688 , 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this c..
More
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE
(Doc. 10)
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
On February 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 (Doc. 10.) In light of the parties' stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The parties also requested that the Court "retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement agreement under the authority of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994)." (Doc. 10 at 2.) The Court in its discretion declines the parties' request. See id. at 381; Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App'x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009). Cf. California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02328-KJM-AC, 2016 WL 4796841, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (noting that "the court in its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties' settlement agreement," but making "an exception" and retaining jurisdiction where the parties "engaged in significant settlement discussions with the assigned magistrate judge prior to ultimately settling according to terms of their Consent Agreement.").
Source: Leagle
