Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc.

E.D. California

Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc.

DecidedDecember 20, 2019

Docket1:18-cv-01429

StatusUnknown

This text of Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc. (Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LEANDRA CARDENAS, No. 1:18-cv-01429-LJO-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 BETHESDA LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES, INC., (Doc. 30) 12 Defendant. 13

15 On December 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 30.) 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

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: December 19, 2019 /s/ . 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 1 The parties also requested that the Court “shall have continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the provisions of 26 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 27 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 28 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

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LEANDRA CARDENAS, No. 1:18-cv-01429-LJO-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 BETHESDA LUTHERAN COMMUNITIES, INC., (Doc. 30) 12 Defendant. 13

15 On December 18, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 30.) 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

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Sheila K. Oberto Dated: December 19, 2019 /s/ . 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 1 The parties also requested that the Court “shall have continuing jurisdiction to interpret and enforce the provisions of 26 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 27 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 28 discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Cardenas v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cardenas-v-bethesda-lutheran-communities-inc-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack