Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02096/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02096-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

MARSHALL LOSKOT, an individual; )

and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, ) 2:04-cv-2096-GEB-CMK

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING )

YOU HELP OTHERS, a California )

public benefit corporation, )

) ORDER DISMISSING ACTION

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

v. )

)

GREEN VALLEY FORD; ROBERT STARKS, )

an individual dba GREEN VALLEY )

FORD, SUZUKI, DODGE & MAZDA, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On December 1, 2005, the parties filed a “Stipulation of

Dismissal and [Proposed] Order Thereon” (“Stipulation”) which states

that the parties 

stipulate to dismissal of this action in its

entirety without prejudice . . . . Outside of the

terms of the Mutual Settlement Agreement and

Release (“Agreement”) herein, each party is to

bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees. The

parties further consent to and request that the

Court retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the

Agreement. 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between

parties to this action . . . that the aboveCase 2:04-cv-02096-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 12/06/05 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

captioned action be and hereby is dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure section 41(a)(1).

(Stipulation at 1.)

 “[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court

should exercise continuing jurisdiction [over their Agreement] is not

binding on the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l Inc., 96

F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). Further, the parties erroneously

assume in their Stipulation that the Court will exercise jurisdiction

over something it has not seen. Accordingly, the Court will not

retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the parties’ Agreement. 

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 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: December 5, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02096-GEB-CMK Document 14 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2