ORDER CLOSING CASE FOLLOWING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 35)

DALE A. DROZD, District Judge.

On December 21, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing this action with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). (Doc. No. 35.)

Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if he or she files "a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared." In light of the voluntary dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared,1 this action has terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and has been dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear their own attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses.

The parties also request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Court Enforceable Settlement Agreement (Doc. No. 30) through April 26, 2019. 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.