Carey et al v. S.J. Louis Construction Inc. et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/19/11 DISMISSING case WITH PREJUDICE. CASE CLOSED. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

JUSTIN CAREY, JOSEPH BORDEN, and
PEDRO ESPINOZA, each as an
individual, on his own behalf,
Plaintiffs,

10
v.

11

14

S.J. LOUIS CONSTRUCTION INC., a
Minnesota Corporation, and
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Massachusetts
Corporation,

15

Defendants.
________________________________

12
13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:10-cv-02017-GEB-GGH
ORDER DISMISSING ACTION WITH
PREJUDICE

16
On December 15, 2011, the parties filed a stipulated dismissal

17
18

of this action with prejudice, in which they state

“[t]he Court . . .

19

shall retain jurisdiction solely for the purpose of enforcing the terms

20

of the Parties’ confidential settlement agreement.”

21

parties presume a federal judge will retain jurisdiction over what the

22

parties characterize to be their confidential settlement agreement, the

23

parties have not shown that exercising jurisdiction as they request is

24

“essential to the conduct of federal-court business.”

Kokkonen v.

25

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994).

“[T]he mere

26

fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise continuing

27

jurisdiction [over their settlement agreement] is not binding on the

28

court.”

Although the

Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir.

1

1

1996)(stating “the district court was under no obligation to . . .

2

retain continuing jurisdiction over [settlement] agreements.”).

3

federal court may refuse to exercise continuing jurisdiction even though

4

the parties have agreed to it.” Collins v. Thompson, 8 F.3d 657, 659

5

(9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1127(1984).

“A

6

Further, since the parties have settled this action, this

7

action is dismissed with prejudice as the parties state in their

8

stipulation.

9

1980)

See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir.

(stating

“[n]or

are

we

deterred

from

finding

a

stipulated

10

dismissal by the fact that there is no formal stipulation of dismissal

11

entered in the record by the [the parties],” in the situation where it

12

is obvious that is what the parties intended).

13

Dated:

December 19, 2011

14
15
16

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2