Brittbrandt, Inc. v. Chavez et al
Filing
19
ORDER DISMISSING CASE With Prejudice Pursuant to Rule 41 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/5/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRITTBRANDT, INC.,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 1:16-cv-01295-DAD-SAB
v.
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 41
TOMMY CHAVEZ, VANESSA ROMO
CHAVEZ, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,
16
Defendants.
17
On March 17, 2017, the parties to this action filed a stipulation pursuant to Rule 41 of the
18
19
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seeking to dismiss this action with prejudice and having the
20
court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement of the parties. (Doc. No. 18.) Under
21
Rule 41, an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request by court order on terms the court
22
deems proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The parties having so stipulated, the court orders this
23
matter dismissed with prejudice. The court shall retain jurisdiction over the matter for the
24
purposes of enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. of
25
/////
26
/////
27
/////
28
/////
1
1
Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994); Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017
2
(9th Cir. 2007).
3
4
5
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?