Prime Selection, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company; and Does 1 through 50
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The court considered a stipulation by the parties to dismiss the action with prejudice and retain jurisdiction over their settlement agreement. The court denied the stipulation because the parties failed to attach the agreement or explain why retention of jurisdiction was necessary, ordering them to file an amended stipulation.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of the parties' stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice and request to retain jurisdiction.“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the stipulation and dismissal.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that a federal court is not obligated to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement merely because the parties agree to it. By citing Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc. and Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., the court established that retention requires either incorporation of the agreement into the dismissal order or an explicit statement of retention, often supported by a showing of necessity. Because the parties provided a 'generic request' without attaching the agreement or explaining the necessity of perpetual jurisdiction, the court's decision to deny the stipulation and require a more specific filing is procedurally sound and consistent with Ninth Circuit precedent. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for retaining jurisdiction over a settlement (citing Kokkonen and Arata) and applies it to the specific procedural deficiency in the parties' filing (failure to attach the agreement or explain necessity). The court did not simply deny the dismissal but provided a clear path for the parties to cure the defect by filing an amended stipulation.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13 PRIME SELECTION, INC., a California Case No.: 3:25-cv-02277-GPC-VET 14 Corporation, 15 Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel 16 17 vs. Magistrate Judge: Hon. Valerie E. Torres 18 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a 19 Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 ORDER DENYING STIPULATION through 50, AND DISMISSAL 20 inclusive, 21 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On August 6, 2026, both parties filed a stipulation and order of dismissal 2 seeking to dismiss the action with prejudice in accordance with the written 3 settlement agreement. (Dkt. No. 39.) The parties also request that the “Court 4 continue to retain jurisdiction over the terms of the Parties’ settlement agreement.” 5 (Id.) 6 “[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the court should exercise 7 continuing jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 8 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). “[A] federal court may retain jurisdiction over 9 a settlement agreement where the court's order of dismissal incorporates the terms 10 of the settlement agreement, or the order of dismissal explicitly states that the court 11 retains jurisdiction over the settlement.” Gonzalez v. United States, No. 16-cv-1792- 12 MMA (KSC), 2017 WL 1094074, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) (citing Kokkonen 13 v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). “[A] court is under no 14 obligation to retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, but may do so if it 15 chooses.” LA All. for Hum. Rts. v. City of Los Angeles, No. 16 LACV2002291DOCKES, 2023 WL 3431905 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2023) (quoting 17 Brass Smith, LLC v. RPI Indus., Inc., 827 F. Supp. 2d 377, 381 (D.N.J. 2011)). 18 19 Here, the parties request that the Court retain jurisdiction over the terms of 20 the settlement agreement but do not attach the settlement agreement nor provide 21 any reasons or argument as to why the Court should retain jurisdiction. In 22 addition, the parties did not explain the necessity of the Court’s retention of 23 jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement in perpetuity. Accordingly, the Court 24 DENIES the stipulation and dismissal. See Valencia v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 25 1:25-CV-00989-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 3776640, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025) 26 (noting that the court “generally declines generic requests to retain jurisdiction 27 following dismissal.”). The parties shall file an amended stipulation and dismissal 28 1 ||explaining why the Court should retain jurisdiction over the Settlement Agreement 2 |)on or before August 18, 2026. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 11, 2026 (2 apho CS A ) Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge 8 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28