Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02374/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02374-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
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

SCOTT N. JOHNSON, ) 2:06-cv-2374-GEB-EFB

)

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. ) ORDER

) 

CAPSTAR SACRAMENTO COMPANY, LLC, )

a Delaware limited liability )

company; MERISTAR H & R OPERATING )

COMPANY, L.P.; and DOES )

1 through 10, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On January 11, 2007, the parties filed a Stipulated

Dismissal and Order Thereon (“Stipulated Dismissal”) in which they

stipulate that “[a]ll of Plaintiff’s claims in this Lawsuit be

dismissed with prejudice . . . .” (Stipulated Dismissal at 1.) The

Stipulated Dismissal further provides that “th[e] stipulation is made

pursuant to the Confidential Settlement Agreement and General Release

entered into by and among the parties and the parties request that the

Court retain jurisdiction only for enforcement purposes.” (Id. at 2.)

The Court declines the parties’ request for it to retain

jurisdiction over a settlement agreement it has not seen. Parties who

assume that a federal court will automatically exercise jurisdiction

Case 2:06-cv-02374-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 01/12/07 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

over a settlement agreement fail to recognize that “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). Whether jurisdiction over a settlement agreement is exercised

depends upon a finding that sufficient reason exists to do so. 

Settlement agreements are contracts, and the “automatic jurisdiction

over such contracts is in no way essential to the conduct of federalcourt business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S.

375, 381 (1994). Because the parties have not provided reason

justifying the exercise of jurisdiction over their settlement

agreement, and conjecture is required as to the appropriateness of

doing so, the parties’ request is denied. 

Since the parties have settled this action and have

stipulated to dismiss the action with prejudice, this action is

dismissed with prejudice. Cf. Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191,

194-95 (5th Cir. 1980) (indicating that a dismissal order should issue

where it is evident that is the parties’ intent, even though the

parties failed to file a formal stipulation of dismissal document).

The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02374-GEB-EFB Document 13 Filed 01/12/07 Page 2 of 2