United States v. State of Nevada

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3. , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00004 A Plaintiff, Vv. {PROPOSED THE STATE OF NEVADA, ORDER Defendants. For good cause shown, and in consideration of the Parties’ Joint Motion to Dismiss and Retain Jurisdiction, the Court hereby GRANTS the Joint Motion and conditionally dismisses the above-titled action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Court specifically retains jurisdiction to enforce the Agreement (filed with the Court as Attachment A to the Joint Motion to Dismiss and Retain Jurisdiction), in accordance with its terms, which are incorporated herein by reference, and for its duration. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994) (recognizing that a federal district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a “dismissal-producing settlement agreement” in its order); Alvarado v. Table Mountain Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[A] federal court has jurisdiction to enforce a ! settlement agreement in a dismissed case when the dismissal order incorporates the settlement terms, or the court has retained jurisdiction over the settlement contract.”). SOORDERED this 5th day of February , 2025. Yr ws jlosed Ter United States District Judge -