Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ERNESTO VENTURA, No. 1:21-cv-001433-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 SEMIOS USA, INC., (Doc. 11) 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 On October 18, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 11.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. 17 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has 18 been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: October 21, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “shall retain jurisdiction only for purposes of enforcing the terms set forth in the parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release. (See Doc. 11 at 2.) The Court in its 26 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. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); California Sportfishing 27 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 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the 28 parties’ settlement agreement.”).