Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00686/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00686-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)

---

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

JOHN C. JENSEN, )

)

Plaintiff, ) 2:04-cv-0686-GEB-KJM

)

v. ) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

)

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General )

of the U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On November 7, 2005, the parties filed a “Stipulation for

Dismissal; Order of Dismissal” (“Stipulation”) which states: “The

parties hereby stipulate that the complaint in this action be

dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement

Agreement, the Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of

the Settlement Agreement.”

Thus, the parties request the federal court to retain

jurisdiction over their settlement agreement, even though they have

not shown that settlement agreement to the judge and fail to show

reason for the exercise of jurisdiction over any aspect of it. “[T]he

mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 52 Filed 11/09/05 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

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). Since the parties have not provided reason

justifying the exercise of jurisdiction over any aspect of their

settlement agreement, the parties’ request is denied. 

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 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil procedure

41(a)(1) as the parties requested in their Stipulation. 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: November 8, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00686-GEB -KJM Document 52 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2