Gray v. Sanofi S.A.

Opinion

MONA GRAY, Case No. 2:23-cv-02518-KES-SKO Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE SANOFI US SERVICES, INC., et al, (Doc. 33) Defendants. On February 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action without prejudice.1 (Doc. 33.) 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 without prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that “[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement between the Parties pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.” (See Doc. 33-1.) Without deciding the question of whether, under Erie, it is obligated to apply § 664.6, the Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. 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.”). See also Hartley v. On My Own, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00353-KJM-EFB, 2020 WL 5017608, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (“[T]he court in its discretion declines to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement under California Civil Procedure Code section 664.6.”).