Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00685/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1352 Miller Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

The United State of America for )

the Use and Benefit of THE BEEBE ) 2:05-cv-685-GEB-KJM

CORPORATION, a California )

corporation, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

v. ) 

)

ALL POWER, INC., a California )

corporation; and ST. PAUL/ )

TRAVELERS, a corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

ALL POWER, INC., )

)

Counterclaimant, )

)

v. )

)

THE BEEBE CORPORATION, a )

California corporation, )

)

Counterdefendant. )

)

On September 15, 2005, the parties filed a “Stipulation for

Dismissal With Prejudice and Order” (“Stipulation”) which states the

parties 

stipulate and agree that the Complaint . . . and

the Counterclaim . . . should be dismissed with

Case 2:05-cv-00685-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/29/05 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

2

prejudice pursuant to the Mutual Release and

Settlement Agreement . . . . The terms of the

Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement are

explicitly incorporated by Plaintiff and

Defendants into this Stipulation for Dismissal

with Prejudice and Order. The parties hereto

further stipulate, acknowledge and agree that the

District Court of the United States for Eastern

District of California shall retain exclusive

jurisdiction to enforce the terms and provisions

of the Mutual Release and Settlement Agreement.

(Stipulation at 1-2.)

I have not read the above-referenced Settlement Agreement

and decline the parties’ invitation to exercise jurisdiction over

something I have not seen. Further, “the mere fact that the parties

agree that the court should exercise continuing jurisdiction [over

their Settlement Agreement] is not binding on the court.” Arata v. Nu

Skin Int’l Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Inasmuch as the parties represent they have settled this

action and desire it dismissed, and nothing in their Stipulation

indicates the settlement is contingent upon the Court retaining

jurisdiction over any aspect of their Settlement Agreement, this

action is dismissed. See Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194

(5th Cir. 1980) (revealing that when the parties’ representations of

settlement are tantamount to a stipulated dismissal, a dismissal order

should issue). The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this

action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00685-GEB -KJM Document 12 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2