Johnson,et al., v. City of Vallejo, CA

Filing 18

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with prejudice signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 7/17/12. The federal court does not retain jurisdiction over the parties' referenced settlement agreement. CASE CLOSED(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

JOHN JOHNSON, TIMOTHY RAMSAY,
STUART COLE, RICHARD BAKER,
WILLIAM STOCKMAN, RODNEY
JEFFRIES, MICHAEL HAFF, DANIEL
ELLICOCK, JASON FRINK,

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

Plaintiffs,

11
v.

12
13

CITY OF VALLEJO, a municipal
corporation,

14

Defendant.
________________________________

15

2:11-cv-01876-GEB-GGH
ORDER OF DISMISSAL

16

The parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice

17

and Proposed Order on July 13, 2012, in which they represent this action

18

has settled and state this action may “be dismissed with prejudice in

19

its entirety as to all parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

20

Procedure 41(a)(2) based upon the terms and conditions stated in the

21

attached Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims[.]”. (ECF

22

No. 17, 2:10-16.) The parties also state in this filing that they agree

23

the Court will retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the terms

24

of the ‘Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims[.]’” Id. at

25

2:21-23.

26

The

parties

mistakenly

assume

the

Court

will

retain

27

jurisdiction over this action to enforce the terms of the referenced

28

settlement. The parties have not shown reason why this court should

1

1

retain jurisdiction, and “the mere fact that the parties agree that the

2

court [shall] exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on the

3

court.”

4

1996); see also Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d 926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002)

5

(observing

6

contract to be enforced in the usual way, that is, by fresh suit”)

7

(citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378-82 (1994))

8

(additional citations omitted).

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

that

settlement

of

a

federal

lawsuit

“is

just

another

9

Since the parties have settled and agreed to dismiss this

10

action with prejudice, this action is dismissed with prejudice. See

11

Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1980) (revealing

12

that “even . . . [when] no formal dismissal . . . [is] filed with the

13

clerk,” a dismissal order may enter to effectuate the parties’ evident

14

intent). However, the federal court does not retain jurisdiction over

15

the parties’ referenced settlement agreement. The Clerk of the Court

16

shall close this action.

17

Dated:

July 17, 2012

18
19
20

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2