Nunn v. United States Liability Insurance Company
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Suzanne Nunn and Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to a settlement agreement. The court granted the motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction for one year to enforce the settlement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and DISMISSES this action as to Nationwide WITH PREJUDICE.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action by filing a notice of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. The parties' joint motion constitutes such a notice, and the dismissal with prejudice is consistent with the parties' agreement and the rule's provisions for voluntary dismissal. |
Retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement“Further, as requested in the Joint Motion, the Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Nationwide to enforce the terms of their settlement agreement for a period not to exceed one year from the date of this Order.” | agree with court The court's decision to retain jurisdiction is supported by the parties' request and the cited authority, *Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.*, which establishes that federal courts may retain jurisdiction over settlement agreements if the agreement itself provides for such retention or if the parties agree to it. The order cites *Seldon* for the proposition that courts have discretion to retain jurisdiction, which is consistent with *Kokkonen*. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and cites appropriate authority for retaining jurisdiction. However, it does not explicitly state that the dismissal is pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (joint stipulation), only citing Rule 41(a) generally. This is a minor gap but does not affect the outcome.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SUZANNE NUNN, an individual, Case No.: 21-CV-1473 JLS (MSB)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. AND DEFENDANT NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 14 UNITED STATES LIABILITY COMPANY’S JOINT MOTION TO INSURANCE COMPANY, a 15 DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE Pennsylvania corporation;
16 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE (ECF No. 111) COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; and 17 DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Presently before the Court is the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice (“Joint 21 Mot.,” ECF No. 108) filed by Plaintiff Suzanne Nunn and Defendant Nationwide Mutual 22 Insurance Company (“Nationwide”). Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the Joint 23 Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) and DISMISSES this action as 24 to Nationwide WITH PREJUDICE. As agreed by and between Plaintiff and Nationwide, 25 each side will bear its own attorney’s fees and costs. Further, as requested in the Joint 26 Motion, the Court will retain jurisdiction over Plaintiff and Nationwide to enforce the terms 27 of their settlement agreement for a period not to exceed one year from the date of this 28 Order. See Seldon v. George Brown Sports Club - Palm, LLC, No. 1:17-cv-01421-DAD- 1 || SAB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1246, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2019) (“Federal courts may, 2 || within their discretion, retain jurisdiction over settlement agreements reached out of court.” 3 || (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994))). 4 As this concludes the litigation in this matter, the Clerk of the Court SHALL 5 || CLOSE the file. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: August 5, 2024 jae L. Lo memeaite- g on. Janis L. Sammartino 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28