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)

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