Vachagan Mike Asatryan v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

C.D. California

Vachagan Mike Asatryan v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.

DecidedJanuary 26, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-06846

StatusUnknown

This text of Vachagan Mike Asatryan v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (Vachagan Mike Asatryan v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vachagan Mike Asatryan v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 JS-6

5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 11 VACHAGAN MIKE ASATRYAN, an Case No.: 2:25-cv-06846-CV (MAAx)

12 individual, 13 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH Plaintiff, PREJUDICE 14 vs. 15

16 PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. 17 18 Defendants. 19

26 27 28 On January 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting the Co ? |/to dismiss the above-captioned action with prejudice in accordance with the term and conditions of their written settlement agreement (“Stipulation’’). Doc. # 13. Th parties also request the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce and requir ° compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Id. ° The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation and good cause having bee found, hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Stipulation an ORDERS as follows:

0 1. The parties’ request to dismiss the above-captioned action wi

prejudice in accordance with the terms and conditions of their writte settlement agreement is GRANTED; and 1B 2. The Court DENIES the parties’ request to retain jurisdiction over thei 14 settlement agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. 15 511 U.S. 375, 375-76 (1994) (“[E|nforcement of the settlemen 16 agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basi 17 for federal jurisdiction] .|”); Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265 18 1269 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that th 19 court should exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on th 20 court.”). 21 3. The Scheduling Conference currently set for January 30, 2026 1 22 hereby VACATED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED 25 26 ||Date: 1/26/26 By: Curation Valenzuela HONYCYNTHIA VALENZUELA 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

-2-

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

1 2

3 JS-6

5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 11 VACHAGAN MIKE ASATRYAN, an Case No.: 2:25-cv-06846-CV (MAAx)

12 individual, 13 ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH Plaintiff, PREJUDICE 14 vs. 15

16 PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC. 17 18 Defendants. 19

26 27 28 On January 15, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation requesting the Co ? |/to dismiss the above-captioned action with prejudice in accordance with the term and conditions of their written settlement agreement (“Stipulation’’). Doc. # 13. Th parties also request the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce and requir ° compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Id. ° The Court, having reviewed the Stipulation and good cause having bee found, hereby GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the Stipulation an ORDERS as follows:

0 1. The parties’ request to dismiss the above-captioned action wi

prejudice in accordance with the terms and conditions of their writte settlement agreement is GRANTED; and 1B 2. The Court DENIES the parties’ request to retain jurisdiction over thei 14 settlement agreement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. 15 511 U.S. 375, 375-76 (1994) (“[E|nforcement of the settlemen 16 agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basi 17 for federal jurisdiction] .|”); Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265 18 1269 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that th 19 court should exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on th 20 court.”). 21 3. The Scheduling Conference currently set for January 30, 2026 1 22 hereby VACATED. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED 25 26 ||Date: 1/26/26 By: Curation Valenzuela HONYCYNTHIA VALENZUELA 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28

-2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vachagan Mike Asatryan v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vachagan-mike-asatryan-v-porsche-cars-north-america-inc-cacd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack