Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00904/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00904-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Dispute

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KRISTOFER MILLER d/b/a COLD ) 2:07-cv-00904-GEB-KJM

SPRINGS CONSTRUCTION, )

) ORDER

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

) 

SASHCO, INC., a Colorado )

Corporation, )

) 

Defendant. )

)

On December 27, 2007, the parties filed a “Stipulation of

Dismissal” in which they state they have settled this action, the

action is dismissed with prejudice, and that “[t]he Court shall

retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing, and to the extent

necessary to enforce, the parties’ written settlement agreement.”

The parties’ “Stipulation of Dismissal” erroneously

assumes continuing jurisdiction will be exercised over a settlement

agreement which the Court has not seen. “[T]he mere fact that the

parties agree that the court should exercise continuing

jurisdiction is not binding on the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin

Intern., Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9 Cir. 1996). Jurisdiction th

will not be exercised over the settlement the parties’ reached. 

Since the parties have settled this action and dismiss it 

with prejudice, this action is dismissed with prejudice. See

Case 2:07-cv-00904-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 01/04/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 195 (5 Cir. 1980) th

(revealing that “even when no formal dismissal [is] filed with the

clerk,” a dismissal order may enter to effectuate the parties’

intent).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-00904-GEB -KJM Document 31 Filed 01/04/08 Page 2 of 2