Kemmer v. USAA Savings Bank

E.D. California

Kemmer v. USAA Savings Bank

DecidedSeptember 4, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-00116

StatusUnknown

This text of Kemmer v. USAA Savings Bank (Kemmer v. USAA Savings Bank) 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

Kemmer v. USAA Savings Bank, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYNNE KEMMER, No. 1:19-cv-00116-AWI-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 14 USAA SAVINGS BANK, (Doc. 19) 15 Defendant. 16

17 On August 28, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 18 prejudice.1 (Doc. 19.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has 20 // 21 // 22

23 1 The parties also requested, in their Notice of Settlement, that the Court “retain jurisdiction for sixty (60) days for any matters related to completing and/or enforcing the settlement and stay all remaining discovery deadlines.” (Doc. 17 at 24 1.) On August 26, 2019, the Court allowed the parties sixty days in which to complete the settlement and file dispositional documents requesting the dismissal of the action, and vacated all other deadlines. (Doc. 18.) To the 25 extent the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction beyond the dismissal of the case, the Court in its discretion denies the parties’ request. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994); Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009). Cf. California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & 26 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 27 agreement,” but making “an exception” and retaining jurisdiction where the parties “engaged in significant settlement discussions with the assigned magistrate judge prior to ultimately settling according to terms of their Consent 28 Agreement.”). 1 been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

Sheila K. Oberto 4 Dated: September 2, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LYNNE KEMMER, No. 1:19-cv-00116-AWI-SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 14 USAA SAVINGS BANK, (Doc. 19) 15 Defendant. 16

17 On August 28, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 18 prejudice.1 (Doc. 19.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. 19 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has 20 // 21 // 22

23 1 The parties also requested, in their Notice of Settlement, that the Court “retain jurisdiction for sixty (60) days for any matters related to completing and/or enforcing the settlement and stay all remaining discovery deadlines.” (Doc. 17 at 24 1.) On August 26, 2019, the Court allowed the parties sixty days in which to complete the settlement and file dispositional documents requesting the dismissal of the action, and vacated all other deadlines. (Doc. 18.) To the 25 extent the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction beyond the dismissal of the case, the Court in its discretion denies the parties’ request. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994); Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009). Cf. California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & 26 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 27 agreement,” but making “an exception” and retaining jurisdiction where the parties “engaged in significant settlement discussions with the assigned magistrate judge prior to ultimately settling according to terms of their Consent 28 Agreement.”). 1 been dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

Sheila K. Oberto 4 Dated: September 2, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kemmer v. USAA Savings Bank, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kemmer-v-usaa-savings-bank-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack