Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc.

E.D. California

Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 20, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-01429·Unknown

Opinion

LEANDRA CARDENAS, No. 1:18-cv-01429-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE COMMUNITIES, INC., (Doc. 30) Defendant.

On December 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 (Doc. 30.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: December 19, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 The parties also requested that the Court “shall have continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the provisions of the settlement and release agreement executed by the Parties.” (See Doc. 30 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 (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 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

LEANDRA CARDENAS, No. 1:18-cv-01429-LJO-SKO Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE COMMUNITIES, INC., (Doc. 30) Defendant.

On December 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 (Doc. 30.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: December 19, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1 The parties also requested that the Court “shall have continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the provisions of the settlement and release agreement executed by the Parties.” (See Doc. 30 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 (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 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).

Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc. (Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related