ORDER CLOSING CASE FOLLOWING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Jose Acosta filed a notice of settlement on February 22, 2018, and a stipulation dismissing this action with prejudice "pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)" on February 27, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 5, 7.)

Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if he or she files "a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or motion for summary judgment" or a "stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). Because defendants here have not served either an answer or a motion for summary judgment, the court will construe the stipulation as being submitted by plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In light of the voluntary dismissal, this action has terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice.

The parties also request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 7.) 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 settlement agreement.

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.