Acosta v. Extreme Connections, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to Close the Case, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 3/7/18. CASE CLOSED. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
JOSE ACOSTA,

No. 1:17-CV-01215-AWI-SKO

11
Plaintiff,
12

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF
THE COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE

v.
(Doc. 18)

13
14

EXTREME CONNECTIONS, INC. dba
EXTREME CONNECTIONS, et al.,

15

)

Defendants.

16
17
On March 6, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Stipulation to dismiss the matter with
18

prejudice.1 (Doc. 18.) In light of the parties’ Stipulation, this action has been terminated, see

19
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and
20
has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close
21
this case.
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
1

25
26
27
28

The parties also requested that the Court “retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their settlement agreement
under the authority of Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994).” (Doc. 18 at 2.)
The Court, in its discretion, declines the parties’ request. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381; Camacho v. City of San
Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); cf. California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc.,
No 2:14-cv-02328-KJM-AC, 2016 WL 4796841, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (noting that “the court in its
discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement,” but
making “an exception: and retaining jurisdiction where the parties “engaged in significant settlement discussions with
the assigned magistrate judge prior to ultimately settling according to terms of their Consent Agreement”).

1
2

Dated:

March 7, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.