Bryant v. Train Depot, Inc. et al

Filing 11

ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk of the Court to Close the Case 10 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 2/7/2018. (CASE CLOSED)(Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RACHEL BRYANT,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-01459-DAD-SKO

v.

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE

TRAIN DEPOT, INC., et al.,
(Doc. 10)

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

On February 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with

19

prejudice.1 (Doc. 10.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed.

20

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has

21

been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close 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. 10 at 2.)
The Court in its discretion declines the parties’ request. See id. 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-cv02328-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

Dated:

February 7, 2018

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
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

.