Opinion
2:13-cv-01612-GEB-DAD
02-11-2014
Scott Johnson, Plaintiff, v. RMP Properties, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; Save Mart Supermarkets, a California Corporation; and Does 1-10, Defendants.
DISMISSAL ORDER
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 way, that is, by fresh suit") (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 378-82 (1994)) (additional citations omitted).
Further, in light of the parties' "complete and total" settlement of this action and agreement to dismiss this action with prejudice, (Dismissal Notice 1:25-2:2), this action is dismissed with prejudice. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that "[t]he court reasonably concluded that the parties had the requisite mutual intent to dismiss the action with prejudice" when the court "f[ound] that the parties' . . . representations to the court agreeing to a dismissal with prejudice constituted a voluntary stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)").
__________
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge