Zarco v. Shredfast Mobile Data Destruction, Inc.

Filing 33

DISMISSAL ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 10/17/2013 DISMISSING CASE with prejudice, pursuant to FRCP 41(a)(1)(ii). CASE CLOSED(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MARIO ALBERTO ZARCO,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. 2:12-cv-00826-GEB-CMK

v.

DISMISSAL ORDER

VECOPLAN, LLC, and TOTER,
INC.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

On September 24, 2012, the parties filed a “NOTICE OF

16

STIPULATION . . . OF DISMISSAL,” in which they state this action

17

is

18

(Notice of Stipulation of Dismissal (“Dismissal Notice”) 1:24-

19

2:2, ECF No. 32.) The parties also essentially request, in this

20

filing, that the Court “retain jurisdiction over this litigated

21

matter . . . notwithstanding dismissal of the Action for purposes

22

of enforcing the terms and provisions of the settlement.” (Id. at

23

2:7-16.)

24

settled

and

shall

“be

and

is

dismissed

with

prejudice.”

The parties mistakenly presume the Court will retain

25

jurisdiction

over

this

action

to

26

private settlement agreement, which the Court has not seen. The

27

parties have not shown why the Court should retain jurisdiction,

28

and “the mere fact that the parties agree that the court [shall]
1

enforce

the

terms

of

their

1

exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on the court.”

2

Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996);

3

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

4

(observing that settlement of a federal lawsuit “is just another

5

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

6

suit”) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375,

7

378-82 (1994)) (additional citations omitted).

8

Further, in light of the parties’ “complete and total”

9

settlement of this action and agreement to dismiss this action

10

with

11

dismissed with prejudice. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

12

1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “[t]he court reasonably

13

concluded that the parties had the requisite mutual intent to

14

dismiss the action with prejudice” when the court “f[ound] that

15

the parties’ . . . representations to the court agreeing to a

16

dismissal

17

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)”).

18

prejudice,

with

Dated:

(Dismissal

prejudice

Notice

1:25-2:2),

constituted

October 17, 2013

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

a

this

voluntary

action

is

stipulated