Vaughn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

E.D. California

Vaughn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC

DecidedFebruary 11, 2025

Docket2:23-cv-02702

StatusUnknown

This text of Vaughn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC (Vaughn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC) 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

Vaughn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JACQUELIN VAUGHN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02702-KES-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, et al, (Doc. 31) 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On February 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action without 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 31.) 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

21 Dated: February 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

24 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that “[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement between the Parties pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.” (See Doc. 31-1.) Without deciding the question of 25 whether, under Erie, it is obligated to apply § 664.6, the Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 26 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 also Hartley 27 v. On My Own, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00353-KJM-EFB, 2020 WL 5017608, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (“[T]he court in its discretion declines to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement under California Civil Procedure 28 Code section 664.6.”).

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

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JACQUELIN VAUGHN, Case No. 2:23-cv-02702-KES-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 SANOFI-AVENTIS U.S. LLC, et al, (Doc. 31) 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 On February 9, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action without 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 31.) 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

21 Dated: February 10, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

24 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that “[t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement between the Parties pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 664.6.” (See Doc. 31-1.) Without deciding the question of 25 whether, under Erie, it is obligated to apply § 664.6, the Court in its discretion declines to adopt this portion of the stipulation. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); Camacho v. City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Agric. Mgmt. & Prod. Co., Inc., No. 26 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 also Hartley 27 v. On My Own, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00353-KJM-EFB, 2020 WL 5017608, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2020) (“[T]he court in its discretion declines to retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement under California Civil Procedure 28 Code section 664.6.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Vaughn v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vaughn-v-sanofi-aventis-us-llc-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack