Tri-Dam v. Mayar ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 TRI-DAM, Case No. 1:23-cv-01204-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO 12 v. FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) 13 KHALID JOSEPH MAYAR, (ECF No. 17). 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 On May 6, 2024, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice pursuant 18 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (ECF No. 17). The parties’ stipulation states 19 that the parties have agreed that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 20 agreement. (ECF No. 17 at 1; see also id. at 4-11, Exhibit A, “Compromise Settlement 21 Agreement and Mutual General Release of All Claims” ¶ 16). 22 In light of the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 17), this action has been terminated, Fed. R. 23 Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), and has been dismissed with prejudice. 24 Further, the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement 25 for no longer than six months from the date of this order.1 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 26 of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994)) (district courts may retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce 27 settlement agreements). 28 1 The Court declines to retain jurisdiction indefinitely. 1 Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4] Dated: _May 8, 2024 [Je hey — 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28