Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AMANDA JURGENS, No. 1:22-cv-00223-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al, (Doc. 31) 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On March 20, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 16 (Doc. 31.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 18 dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: March 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “retain ancillary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement 26 Agreement between the Parties in its Order.” (See Doc. 31 at 2.) The Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Camacho v. 27 City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02328-KJM-AC, 2016 WL 4796841, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016) (noting that “the court in 28 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).