Agraan v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 2:17-cv-02163-KJM-CKD. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180316a40
Visitors: 12
Filed: Mar. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 15, 2018
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On March 7, 2018, plaintiffs Pete Agraan, Jr. and Alicia Agraan filed an ex parte application for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 35 at 1-2 (noting the parties' settlement agreement has been finalized). On March 13, 2018, defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. responded to the Magistrate Judge's order to show cause, acknowledging finalized settlement in this matter and expressing
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . On March 7, 2018, plaintiffs Pete Agraan, Jr. and Alicia Agraan filed an ex parte application for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 35 at 1-2 (noting the parties' settlement agreement has been finalized). On March 13, 2018, defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. responded to the Magistrate Judge's order to show cause, acknowledging finalized settlement in this matter and expressing ..
More
ORDER
KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.
On March 7, 2018, plaintiffs Pete Agraan, Jr. and Alicia Agraan filed an ex parte application for dismissal of this action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). ECF No. 35 at 1-2 (noting the parties' settlement agreement has been finalized). On March 13, 2018, defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. responded to the Magistrate Judge's order to show cause, acknowledging finalized settlement in this matter and expressing no opposition to plaintiffs' pending request for dismissal. See ECF No. 36; see also ECF No. 38 (Magistrate Judge's order discharging order to show cause).
Accordingly, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice in its entirety, with each party to bear its own costs and attorneys' fees. The court retains jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing settlement, with the clarification that any motion to enforce will be referred to the magistrate judge who presided over the settlement conference. This case is CLOSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
