Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC

E.D. California

Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC

DecidedMarch 21, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00223

StatusUnknown

This text of Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC (Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC) 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

Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 AMANDA JURGENS, No. 1:22-cv-00223-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al, (Doc. 31) 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On March 20, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 16 (Doc. 31.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 18 dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: March 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “retain ancillary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement 26 Agreement between the Parties in its Order.” (See Doc. 31 at 2.) 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. 27 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 28 its 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 AMANDA JURGENS, No. 1:22-cv-00223-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 VELOCITY INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al, (Doc. 31) 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On March 20, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 16 (Doc. 31.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 18 dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: March 21, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “retain ancillary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement 26 Agreement between the Parties in its Order.” (See Doc. 31 at 2.) 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. 27 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 28 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jurgens v. Velocity Investments, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jurgens-v-velocity-investments-llc-caed-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack