MINUTE ORDER

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on the Joint Motion for Stay Pending the Completion of Payment Plan [Docket No. 39]. The parties state that they have entered into a settlement that resolves this case. According to the parties, "the settlement includes a payment plan, with the last payment being due on October 1, 2016" and an "acceleration clause that would allow the Court to enforce the entire settlement in the event of a default." Docket No. 39 at 1-2. The parties request that the Court stay this case until November 1, 2016 so that the Court can retain jurisdiction over any disputes arising under the settlement agreement. Id.

Generally, a trial court has the power to summarily enforce a settlement agreement entered into by the litigants while the litigation is pending before it," United States v. Hardage, 982 F.2d 1491, 1496 (10th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted). However, while the Court appreciates the parties' efforts to resolve this matter, it is not the Court's practice to stay cases until parties have completed their obligations under a settlement agreement. "Except in extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not retain jurisdiction (including through open-ended administrative closure) over cases that have been settled." Judge Philip A. Brimmer, Practice Standards (Civil cases) § I.H.5. The parties' motion sets forth no such circumstances and none are apparent to the Court. The proper mechanism for enforcing a settlement is, in almost all cases, through a new action. Wherefore it is,

ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Stay Pending the Completion of Payment Plan [Docket No. 39] is DENIED. In the event that the parties have reached a settlement, they shall file dismissal papers on or before July 24, 2015.