Baez v. Nissan North America, Inc.

Filing 32

ORDER directing Clerk of Court to close case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a) of FRCP 31 signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/8/2024. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

CIPRIANA BAEZ,
Plaintiff,

11
12

Case No. 1:22-cv-01158-SAB
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT
TO CLOSE CASE AND ADJUST THE
DOCKET TO REFLECT VOLUNTARY
DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO RULE 41(a)
OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE

v.

13

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC.,

14

Defendant.
(ECF No. 31)

15
16

On November 7, 2024, a stipulation was filed dismissing this action with prejudice. The

17 Court notes the proposed order requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over the terms of the
18 parties’ settlement agreement. (ECF No. 31-1.) However, the Court generally declines generic
19 requests to retain jurisdiction following dismissal, absent a specific request and showing of good
20 cause, and such retention requires a subsequent order of approval from the Court retaining
21 jurisdiction.

See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 378 (1994)

22 (“Neither the Rule nor any provision of law provides for jurisdiction of the court over disputes
23 arising out of an agreement that produces the stipulation . . . . [e]nforcement of the settlement
24 agreement, however, whether through award of damages or decree of specific performance, is
25 more than just a continuation or renewal of the dismissed suit, and hence requires its own basis
26 for jurisdiction.”).
27

The parties’ proposed order requests that the Court retain jurisdiction “over the terms of

28 the parties’ settlement agreement.”

(ECF No. 31-1.)

1

Thus, the terms of the settlement

1 agreement have been finalized and the agreement has been executed. The parties therefore
2 request that the Court retain jurisdiction after dismissal for the unspecified performance of the
3 parties’ agreement. However, the parties fail to provide any facts showing good cause for the
4 Court to retain jurisdiction for mere performance of the finalized settlement agreement.
5 Accordingly, absent a showing of good cause, the Court denies the generic request to retain
6 jurisdiction following the stipulated dismissal.
In light of the stipulation of the parties, this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P.

7

8 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been
9 dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY ORDERED to CLOSE the file in this

10

11 case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated:

November 8, 2024
STANLEY A. BOONE
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2