Yates v. Buckeye Roadhouse Restaurant et al

Filing 47

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on July 7, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/7/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 CRAIG YATES, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 Plaintiff, v. BUCKEYE ROADHOUSE RESTAURANT, BUCKEYE ROADHOUSE, INC., and RUDOLPH H. BUSH, ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL Defendants. / 15 16 No. C 10-05283 WHA The parties have settled and have stipulated to dismiss this action with prejudice. The 17 parties specifically state, however, that the settlement agreement is contingent upon the 18 undersigned (or Magistrate Judge Laporte or another magistrate judge) retaining jurisdiction to 19 enforce the settlement agreement, with no date by which such proposed jurisdiction would 20 terminate. This order will not approve of such provision, and would only approve retaining 21 jurisdiction for up to ninety days to enforce the settlement agreement. As the dismissal appears to 22 be contingent upon the jurisdiction provision, the assigned judge cannot instruct the Clerk to close 23 the case pursuant to a FRCP 41(a)(1) dismissal signed by both sides, as he otherwise would. This 24 case shall remain open, and the parties may either file a renewed dismissal (without the offending 25 provision) or continue to litigate this case. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 7, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?