Ivy Shanne Acorin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the case under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and requested that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement. The court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice but declined to retain jurisdiction because the parties did not attach the settlement agreement or provide reasons for retention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant joint motion to dismiss with prejudice“For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to dismiss and dismisses this action in its entirety with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs fees.” | agree with court The parties jointly moved to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), which allows dismissal by joint stipulation. The court found good cause shown. This is a standard procedural disposition that follows from the parties' agreement. |
Decline to retain jurisdiction over settlement agreement“However, for the reasons stated above, the Court DECLINES to retain jurisdiction over the matter for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement.” | agree with court The court applied the principle from Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. that a court is not obligated to retain jurisdiction over a settlement unless it explicitly does so or incorporates the terms. The court noted the parties failed to attach the agreement or provide argument for retention, citing district court precedents that decline generic or unsupported requests. This is a defensible exercise of discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Supreme Court's holding in Kokkonen regarding the retention of jurisdiction over settlements. It properly identifies that the parties failed to meet the burden of attaching the agreement or arguing for retention, citing consistent district court authority for declining such unsupported requests. The reasoning is complete and directly addresses the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVY SHANNE ACORIN, an individual, Case No.: 24-cv-00036-AJB-JAC 12 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION Plaintiff, TO DISMISS 13 v. 14 (Doc. No. 42) EXPERIAN INFORMATION 15 SOLUTIONS, INC., 16 Defendant. 17 18 On July 1, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 19 of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 42.) The parties also ask that the Court retain 20 ancillary jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement. (Id.) 21 As it relates to the Court retaining jurisdiction, “a federal court may retain 22 jurisdiction over a settlement agreement where the court’s order of dismissal incorporates 23 the terms of the settlement agreement, or the order of dismissal explicitly states that the 24 court retains jurisdiction over the settlement.” Gonzalez v. United States, No. 16-cv-1792- 25 MMA (KSC), 2017 WL 1094074, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) (citing Kokkonen v. 26 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). “[A] court is under no obligation 27 to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, but may do so if it chooses.” LA All. for 28 Hum. Rts. v. City of Los Angeles, No. LACV2002291DOCKES, 2023 WL 3431905 (C.D. 1 || Cal. May 2, 2023) (quoting Brass Smith, LLC v. RPI Indus., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 377, 381 2 ||(2011)). 3 Here, because the parties do not attach the Settlement Agreement, nor does Counsel 4 || provide any reason or argument as to why the Court should retain jurisdiction for purposes 5 ||of enforcing the Settlement, the Court declines to do so. See Valencia v. Nissan N. Am., 6 ||Inc., No. 1:25-CV-00989-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 3776640, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025) 7 || (noting that the court “generally declines generic requests to retain jurisdiction following 8 || dismissal); Vestin Realty Mortg. IT, Inc. v. Klaas, No. 08-CV-2011 AJB (MDD), 2014 WL 9 || 12898761 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (denying an unsupported request for the court to retain 10 jurisdiction over a settlement). 11 For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to dismiss and 12 || dismisses this action in its entirety with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs 13 fees. (Doc. No. 42.) However, for the reasons stated above, the Court DECLINES to 14 || retain jurisdiction over the matter for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement. The 15 || Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: July 10, 2026 © 18 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28