West Valley Packing, LLC v. Tortuga Express, LLC, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Guillermo Cabrera (author)
Analysis
The court considered the parties' joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice and retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. The court granted the motion, dismissing the case with prejudice and retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Joint Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice granted“Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and 41(c), this action is dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, including all claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which allows a court to dismiss an action with prejudice upon a joint stipulation of the parties. The order recites that the motion is joint and that good cause appears, satisfying the procedural requirements for dismissal by stipulation. |
Retention of jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement“Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement and Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the Court expressly retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement.” | agree with court The court correctly cited Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), which holds that a district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement if the agreement itself provides for such retention or if the court expressly retains jurisdiction in the dismissal order. The order explicitly states that jurisdiction is retained pursuant to the parties' agreement and the Kokkonen standard. |
Allocation of attorneys' fees and costs“Each Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action.” | agree with court The court ordered each party to bear its own costs, which is a standard and permissible disposition in a settlement dismissal, consistent with the American Rule absent a statutory or contractual provision to the contrary. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate Supreme Court authority (Kokkonen) for retaining jurisdiction to enforce a settlement. The application of Rule 41(a)(2) for a joint dismissal with prejudice is standard and correctly stated.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 WEST VALLEY PACKING, LLC, Case No.: 25-cv-03212-GC 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 15 v. MOTION FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE AND RETENTION OF 16 TORTUGA EXPRESS, LLC, et al., JURISDICTION TO ENFORCEMET 17 Defendants. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 18 [ECF No. 28] 19 20 21 Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice; Joint 22 Request for Retention of Jurisdiction to Enforce Settlement Agreement and to Vacate 23 Settlement Disposition Conference. (ECF No. 28.) Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 24 ORDERED: 25 1. Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and 41(c), this action is 26 dismissed with prejudice in its entirety, including all claims, counterclaims, and 27 third-party claims. 28 2. Each Party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action. 1 3. Pursuant to the Parties’ agreement and Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance 2 Company of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994), the Court expressly retains jurisdiction 3 to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 4 4. All other pending dates and deadlines in this action are VACATED. 5 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: August 20, 2026 8 9 4.— 10 11 Hoh. Guillermo Cabrera 12 United States Magistrate Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28