Karamanoukian v. Liviakis

Opinion

ARA KARAMANOUKIAN, 2:22-cv-01677-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. Defendant.

On September 27, 2023, the parties filed a signed stipulation to dismiss this action with prejudice and requesting that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.1 (ECF No. 41.) Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A), the plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Such dismissals are effective immediately and do not require court approval. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1); Commercial Space Mgmt. Co. v. Boeing Co., 193 F.3d 1074, 1077 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, the court “typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of […] parties’ settlement agreement.” California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 2:14-cv-02328-KJM-AC, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2016). See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 1 On August 29, 2023, defendant made a Rule 68 offer, which has since lapsed. (See ECF No. 39, “Motion for Judgment.”) Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the parties have signed a stipulated dismissal that the entire action be dismissed with prejudice, and therefore the case has terminated automatically. (ECF No. 41.) See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A); Commercial Space, 193 F.3d at 1077. The court in its discretion declines the parties’ request to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. See Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 381. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment, ECF No. 39, is denied as moot. Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that: 1] 1. The Clerk of Court CLOSE this case; and 2. Defendant’s Motion for Judgment, ECF No. 39, is denied as moot. Dated: October 17, 2023 i Aectl Aharon kara.1677 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE