Hernandez v. Richman Property Services, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ROBERT HERNANDEZ, No. 1:25-cv-00010-KES-SKO

10 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 v. (Doc. 22) 12 RICHMAN PROPERTY SERVICES, INC., 13 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 On June 12, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 18 (Doc. 22.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 19 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 20 dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: June 12, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24

25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that dismissal is “contingent on this Court retaining jurisdiction.” (See Doc. 22 at 2.) The Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 26 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 27 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.”). 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28