Johnson v. RMP Properties LLC, et al

Filing 13

DISMISSAL ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/11/2014 ORDERING that in light of the parties' "complete and total" settlement of this action and agreement to dismiss this action with prejudice, this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

12
13

DISMISSAL ORDER

Plaintiff,

10
11

2:13-cv-01612-GEB-DAD

Scott Johnson,

v.
RMP Properties, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability
Company; Save Mart
Supermarkets, a California
Corporation; and Does 1-10,

14

Defendants.

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

On February 5, 2014, the parties filed a “STIPULATION
FOR DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO F.R.41(a)(1); & ORDER THEREON” in which
they dismiss this action with prejudice and assume that the court
will

exercise

jurisdiction

over

a

settlement

agreement

and

matters the court has not seen.
However,

the

parties

have

not

shown

why

the

Court

should retain jurisdiction, and “the mere fact that the parties
agree that the court [shall] exercise continuing jurisdiction is
not binding on the court.”

Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d

1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Jessup v. Luther, 277 F.3d
926, 929 (7th Cir. 2002) (observing that settlement of a federal
lawsuit “is just another contract to be enforced in the usual

28
1

1

way, that is, by fresh suit”) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

2

Ins.

3

omitted).

Co.,

511

U.S.

375,

378-82

(1994))

(additional

citations

4

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

5

settlement of this action and agreement to dismiss this action

6

with

7

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

8

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

9

concluded that the parties had the requisite mutual intent to

10

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

11

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

12

dismissal

13

dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)”).

14

Dated:

prejudice,

with

(Dismissal

prejudice

Notice

1:25-2:2),

constituted

February 11, 2014

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

a

this

voluntary

action

is

stipulated