H.W.J. Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. v. Rethceif Enterprises, LLC

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 H.W.J. DESIGNS FOR AGRIBUSINESS, No. 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO INC., et al. 9 Plaintiffs, 10 ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF v. COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 RETHCEIF ENTERPRISES, LLC., et al., (Doc. 182) 12 Defendants. 13

15 On November 13, 2010, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 182.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see 17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and 18 has 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: November 16, 2020 /s/ . 22 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24

25 1 The parties also requested that the Court “retain jurisdiction of this action for the purpose of resolving any controversy arising under” their confidential settlement agreement. (See Doc. 182 at 1.) The Court in its discretion 26 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. 27 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’ 28 settlement agreement.”).