Wright v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedApril 11, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-01308
StatusUnknown

This text of Wright v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P. (Wright v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P.) 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
Wright v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 VICTORIA WRIGHT, No. 1:22-cv-01308-SKO 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO THIS MATTER AND 11 RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, CLOSE THE CASE L.P., 12 (Doc. 8) Defendant. 13

14 15 On April 7, 2023, the parties filed a joint stipulation dismissing the action with prejudice.1 16 (Doc. 8.) In light of the parties’ stipulation, this action has been terminated, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 18 dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court 19 SHALL assign a district judge to this matter and thereafter CLOSE the case. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 Dated: April 10, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23

24 25 1 The parties’ stipulation also provided that the Court “retain ancillary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement 26 Agreement between the Parties in its Order.” (See Doc. 8 at 2.) 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. 27 City of San Luis, 359 F. App’x 794, 798 (9th Cir. 2009); 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 28 its discretion typically declines to maintain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.”).

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

Related

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Camacho v. City of San Luis
359 F. App'x 794 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Wilson v. City of San Jose
111 F.3d 688 (Ninth Circuit, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wright v. Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-resurgent-capital-services-lp-caed-2023.