Bradley Hudson v. Citibank, N.A.

Opinion

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 | BRADLEY HUDSON, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-0452-EGC 8 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF Plaintiff, COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE v. (Doc. 24) 10 11 | CITIBANK, N.A., 12 13 Defendant. 14 15 On May 29, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.! 16 | (Doc. 24). In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 | 41(aC (AG); 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 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 . CL Mh 2! Dated: _May 29, 2026 Cn A du (lo 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 ' The parties’ stipulation also provided that “the Court will and does retain jurisdiction. . . to enforce the Settlement Agreement.” (See Doc. 24 at 2). The Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. See 27 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 Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02328- 28 | 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 parties’ settlement agreement.”).