Miller v. Sashco, Inc.

Full title: KRISTOFER MILLER d/b/a COLD SPRINGS CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiff, v. SASHCO…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 3, 2008

2:07-cv-00904-GEB-KJM (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2008)

Opinion

2:07-cv-00904-GEB-KJM.

January 3, 2008

ORDER

GARLAND BURRELL JR., District Judge

On December 27, 2007, the parties filed a "Stipulation of Dismissal" in which they state they have settled this action, the action is dismissed with prejudice, and that "[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing, and to the extent necessary to enforce, the parties' written settlement agreement."

The parties' "Stipulation of Dismissal" erroneously assumes continuing jurisdiction will be exercised over a settlement agreement which the Court has not seen. "[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on the court." Arata v. Nu Skin Intern., Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9^th Cir. 1996). Jurisdiction will not be exercised over the settlement the parties' reached.

Since the parties have settled this action and dismiss it with prejudice, this action is dismissed with prejudice. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 195 (5^th Cir. 1980) (revealing that "even when no formal dismissal [is] filed with the clerk," a dismissal order may enter to effectuate the parties' intent).

IT IS SO ORDERED.