Panoche Creek Packing, Inc. v. Great Host International, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PANOCHE CREEK PACKING, INC., No. 1:24-cv-00843-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 GREAT HOST INTERNATIONAL, INC., (Doc. 36) 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 On February 13, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action without 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 36.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. 17 R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has 18 been dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

22 1 The parties’ stipulation also requests that the Court “retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement between the Parties and exercise ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the agreement and/or enter the Stipulated 23 Judgment.” (Doc. 36 at 3.) This is not the first time the parties have made this request, which was declined. (See Docs. 32 & 33.) The Court in its discretion again declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation, as the parties have not 24 shown that exercising jurisdiction over their settlement agreement is “essential to the conduct of federal-court business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994). See Camacho v. City of San 25 Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); see 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 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”). See 26 also ASA Enter., Inc. v. Stan Boyett & Son, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-00915-CDB, 2023 WL 1767735, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2023) (declining to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement and a “proposed stipulated judgment calling for 27 a monetary award that resolves a dispute between private parties,” observing that “unlike traditional consent decrees implicating a federal question, [it] does not require or warrant this Court's supervision.”) (citing Wigton v. Murphy, 410 28 F. Supp. 3d 1121, 1122 (D. Mont. 2019)). 1 Dated: February 13, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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