Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc.

E.D. California

Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc.

DecidedOctober 21, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-01433

StatusUnknown

This text of Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc. (Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc.) 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

Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ERNESTO VENTURA, No. 1:21-cv-001433-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 SEMIOS USA, INC., (Doc. 11) 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 On October 18, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 11.) 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 with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: October 21, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24

25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “shall retain jurisdiction only for purposes of enforcing the terms set forth in the parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release. (See Doc. 11 at 2.) The Court in its 26 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 27 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 28 parties’ settlement agreement.”).

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 ERNESTO VENTURA, No. 1:21-cv-001433-ADA-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE 11 SEMIOS USA, INC., (Doc. 11) 12 Defendant. 13 14 15 On October 18, 2022, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with 16 prejudice.1 (Doc. 11.) 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 with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: October 21, 2022 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24

25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “shall retain jurisdiction only for purposes of enforcing the terms set forth in the parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release. (See Doc. 11 at 2.) The Court in its 26 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 27 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 28 parties’ settlement agreement.”).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ventura v. Semios USA, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ventura-v-semios-usa-inc-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack