Leon Garcia v. Garibay ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ZULEMA LEON GARCIA, et al. No. 1:19-cv-01667-JLT-SKO 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 10 v. COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 ARNULFO GARIBAY, et al., (Docs. 57, 58) 12 Defendants. 13 14 On November 2, 2021, the Court held a settlement conference with the parties, at which 15 time the action settled. (Doc. 53.) The Court ordered the parties to file dismissal documents “once 16 the initial lump sum is paid.” (Id.) On November 4, 2021, the parties filed a notice of settlement. 17 (Doc. 54.) 18 Nine months passed without any action by the parties, and on August 5, 2022, the Court 19 issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why terminating and/or monetary sanctions should not be 20 imposed for the parties’ failure to comply with the Court’s order to file dismissal documents. (Doc. 21 57.) The parties were ordered to file a response to the OSC or a stipulated request for dismissal by 22 no later than 14 days of the Court’s order. (Id. at 2.) 23 On August 8, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 24 prejudice.12 (Doc. 58.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. 25 1 The body of the parties’ stipulation does not expressly state whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, but the proposed order and settlement agreement submitted with the stipulation indicate that the parties intended to dismiss 26 the matter with prejudice. (See Doc. 58 at 3, Exh. 1.) 2 The parties also requested that the Court “retain jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the terms of” their confidential 27 settlement agreement. (See Doc. 58 at 2.) The Court in its discretion declines the parties’ request. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 28 (9th Cir. 2009); California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02328-KJM-AC, 1 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has 2 been dismissed with prejudice. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The OSC entered on August 5, 2022 (Doc. 57) is DISCHARGED; and 5 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 Dated: August 12, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2016 WL 4796841, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (noting that “the court in its discretion typically declines to maintain 28 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).