Derrick Johnson v. Haxton Masonry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

S.D. California

Derrick Johnson v. Haxton Masonry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

District Court, S.D. California·Decided April 3, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-01839·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DERRICK JOHNSON, an individual , Case No.: 25cv1839-GPC(MMP)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 v. TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

14 HAXTON MASONRY, INC, an Arizona [Dkt. No. 15.] corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17

18 The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice which also asks 19 the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement 20 until performance in full of the terms of the Settlement Agreement has occurred. (Dkt. 21 No. 15.) The district court has discretion whether to retain jurisdiction over a settlement 22 after dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Kokkonen v. 23 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994); Ogbuehi v. Comcast of 24 Cal./Colo./Fla./Or., Inc., 303 F.R.D. 337, 351 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (observing that courts 25 have discretion to decline jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement). 26

27 28 1 Here, the joint motion to dismiss does not indicate when the Court’s retention of 2 jurisdiction would end by either attaching a copy of the Settlement Agreement or stating 3 || when full performance of the terms of the Settlement Agreement will occur. 4 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion to dismiss without prejudice to 5 || permit the parties to refile the motion with the requested information. 7 ||Dated: April 3, 2026 2 8 Hon. athe Cae 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 DERRICK JOHNSON, an individual , Case No.: 25cv1839-GPC(MMP)

12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 v. TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

14 HAXTON MASONRY, INC, an Arizona [Dkt. No. 15.] corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17

18 The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice which also asks 19 the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement 20 until performance in full of the terms of the Settlement Agreement has occurred. (Dkt. 21 No. 15.) The district court has discretion whether to retain jurisdiction over a settlement 22 after dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Kokkonen v. 23 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994); Ogbuehi v. Comcast of 24 Cal./Colo./Fla./Or., Inc., 303 F.R.D. 337, 351 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (observing that courts 25 have discretion to decline jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement). 26

27 28 1 Here, the joint motion to dismiss does not indicate when the Court’s retention of 2 jurisdiction would end by either attaching a copy of the Settlement Agreement or stating 3 || when full performance of the terms of the Settlement Agreement will occur. 4 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion to dismiss without prejudice to 5 || permit the parties to refile the motion with the requested information. 7 ||Dated: April 3, 2026 2 8 Hon. athe Cae 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Derrick Johnson v. Haxton Masonry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Derrick Johnson v. Haxton Masonry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive (Derrick Johnson v. Haxton Masonry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related