Jose T. Espinoza v. Nissan North America, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Anthony J. Battaglia (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice and requested that the court retain jurisdiction over their settlement agreement. The court granted the motion to dismiss but declined to retain jurisdiction because the parties did not attach the agreement or provide reasons for retention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint motion to dismiss with prejudice granted“For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to dismiss and DISMISSES this action in its entirety with prejudice.” | agree with court The decision follows from the parties' joint stipulation to dismiss. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), a plaintiff may dismiss an action by filing a joint stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared, unless the court orders otherwise. The court found 'good cause shown' based on the joint filing. |
Request to retain jurisdiction over settlement agreement denied“However, for the reasons stated above, the Court DECLINES to retain jurisdiction over the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle from Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. that a federal court does not automatically retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement unless the dismissal order incorporates the terms or explicitly states that jurisdiction is retained. The court noted that the parties failed to attach the agreement or provide argument for why jurisdiction should be retained, making the request unsupported. The court's discretion to decline retention in the absence of specific justification is consistent with Ninth Circuit and district court precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate Supreme Court precedent (Kokkonen) to establish the standard for retaining jurisdiction. The court properly identified the deficiency in the parties' request (failure to attach the agreement or provide argument) and exercised its discretion to decline retention. The dismissal with prejudice based on a joint stipulation is standard practice under Rule 41.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE T. ESPINOZA, Case No.: 25-cv-01029-AJB-JLB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 13 v. MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISMISSAL 14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., 15 Defendant. (Doc. No. 27) 16 17 On July 14, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion1 to dismiss the action with 18 prejudice. (Doc. No. 27.) The parties also ask that the Court retain jurisdiction over the 19 terms of the parties settlement agreement. (Id.) 20 As it relates to the Court retaining jurisdiction, “a federal court may retain 21 jurisdiction over a settlement agreement where the court’s order of dismissal incorporates 22 the terms of the settlement agreement, or the order of dismissal explicitly states that the 23 court retains jurisdiction over the settlement.” Gonzalez v. United States, No. 16-cv-1792- 24 MMA (KSC), 2017 WL 1094074, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) (citing Kokkonen v. 25 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). “[A] court is under no obligation 26 27 1 The Court construes the parties’ “joint stipulation” as a joint motion. See CivLR 7.2.b (“Any 28 1 || to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, but may do so if it chooses.” LA All. for 2 Hum. Rts. v. City of Los Angeles, No. LACV2002291DOCKES, 2023 WL 3431905 (C.D. 3 || Cal. May 2, 2023) (quoting Brass Smith, LLC v. RPI Indus., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 377, 381 4 ||(2011)). 5 Here, because the parties do not attach the settlement agreement, nor does Counsel 6 || provide any reason or argument as to why the Court should retain jurisdiction for purposes 7 ||of enforcing the settlement, the Court declines to do so. See Valencia v. Nissan N. Am., 8 No. 1:25-CV-00989-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 3776640, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025) 9 || (noting that the court “generally declines generic requests to retain jurisdiction following 10 dismissal); Vestin Realty Mortg. IT, Inc. v. Klaas, No. 08-CV-2011-AJB-MDD, 2014 WL 11 |} 12898761 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014) (denying an unsupported request for the court to retain 12 ||jurisdiction over a settlement). 13 For good cause shown, the Court GRANTS the joint motion to dismiss and 14 || DISMISSES this action in its entirety with prejudice. (Doc. No. 27.) However, for the 15 ||reasons stated above, the Court DECLINES to retain jurisdiction over the terms of the 16 || parties’ settlement agreement. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 ||Dated: July 16, 2026 © 19 Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28