Derrick Johnson v. Haxton Masonry, Inc., an Arizona corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice and requested that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. The court denied the motion without prejudice because the motion failed to specify when the requested retention of jurisdiction would end.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the joint motion to dismiss with prejudice“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion to dismiss without prejudice to permit the parties to refile the motion with the requested information.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that a request to retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement requires a defined endpoint or mechanism for termination to avoid indefinite jurisdiction. By denying the motion without prejudice to allow the parties to cure this deficiency, the court applied standard procedural requirements for voluntary dismissals under Rule 41. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly cites the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Kokkonen) regarding the discretion to retain jurisdiction and identifies a specific, curable defect in the parties' motion (lack of a defined endpoint for jurisdiction). The remedy (denial without prejudice to refile) is appropriate and standard for this type of procedural deficiency.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DERRICK JOHNSON, an individual , Case No.: 25cv1839-GPC(MMP)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING JOINT MOTION 13 v. TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE 14 HAXTON MASONRY, INC, an Arizona [Dkt. No. 15.] corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 15 inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice which also asks 19 the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the parties’ Settlement Agreement 20 until performance in full of the terms of the Settlement Agreement has occurred. (Dkt. 21 No. 15.) The district court has discretion whether to retain jurisdiction over a settlement 22 after dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). See Kokkonen v. 23 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381-82 (1994); Ogbuehi v. Comcast of 24 Cal./Colo./Fla./Or., Inc., 303 F.R.D. 337, 351 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (observing that courts 25 have discretion to decline jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement). 26 27 28 1 Here, the joint motion to dismiss does not indicate when the Court’s retention of 2 jurisdiction would end by either attaching a copy of the Settlement Agreement or stating 3 || when full performance of the terms of the Settlement Agreement will occur. 4 || Accordingly, the Court DENIES the parties’ joint motion to dismiss without prejudice to 5 || permit the parties to refile the motion with the requested information. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: April 3, 2026 2 8 Hon. athe Cae 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28