ORDER CLOSING CASE FOLLOWING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

On February 7, 2018, the parties in this action filed a stipulation of dismissal, requesting that the court dismiss the action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. No. 24.) Dismissals under this provision are effective without an order of the court and dismissal is automatic upon the filing of the stipulation. See Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that dismissals under Rule 41(a)(1) are "effective on filing and no court order is required"); see also Comm. Space Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Boeing Co., Inc., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999).

The parties also request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their confidential settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 24.) Federal courts may, within their discretion, retain jurisdiction over settlement agreements reached out of court. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). The decision to retain jurisdiction is discretionary and not mandatory. See HM Elec., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12-cv-2884-BAS-MDD, 2016 WL 4063806, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016). The court will retain jurisdiction here to interpret and enforce the terms of the settlement agreement in light of the future actions anticipated pursuant to that agreement.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.