Acosta v. Economy Smog, Inc., et al.

Filing 8

ORDER CLOSING CASE Following Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/9/2018. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE ACOSTA, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:17-cv-01651-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. ECONOMY SMOG, INC., et al., Defendants. ORDER CLOSING CASE FOLLOWING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. No. 7) 16 17 18 Plaintiff Jose Acosta filed a notice of settlement on February 22, 2018, and a stipulation 19 dismissing this action with prejudice “pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2)” on 20 February 27, 2018. (Doc. Nos. 5, 7.) 21 Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order if he or 22 she files “a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or motion for 23 summary judgment” or a “stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i)–(ii). Because defendants here have not served either an answer or a 25 motion for summary judgment, the court will construe the stipulation as being submitted by 26 plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). In light of the voluntary 27 dismissal, this action has terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Wilson v. City of San 28 Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. 1 1 The parties also request that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of their 2 settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 7.) Federal courts may, within their discretion, retain 3 jurisdiction over settlement agreements reached out of court. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 4 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). The decision to retain jurisdiction is discretionary and not 5 mandatory. See HM Elec., Inc. v. R.F. Techs., Inc., No. 12-cv-2884-BAS-MDD, 2016 WL 6 4063806, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2016). The court will retain jurisdiction here to interpret and 7 enforce the terms of the settlement agreement in light of the future actions anticipated pursuant to 8 that settlement agreement. 9 10 11 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 9, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?