Brian Hagen v. Responsible Medical Solutions Corp., a California Corporation
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Gonzalo P. Curiel (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice and a request for the court to retain jurisdiction to enforce their settlement agreement. The court denied the stipulation because the parties failed to show good cause for retaining jurisdiction, ordering them to file an amended stipulation by September 15, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of joint stipulation for dismissal with prejudice and request for order retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the joint stipulation for dismissal and request for order retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreement.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the rule that a federal court does not automatically retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement upon dismissal unless the dismissal order incorporates the terms of the settlement or the parties demonstrate good cause. The order recites that the parties made a 'generic request' and 'fail to provide good cause.' Under Ninth Circuit precedent (Arata v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc.), the parties' agreement to retain jurisdiction is not binding on the court. Therefore, denying the stipulation and requiring the parties to demonstrate good cause is the legally correct procedural step. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the legal standard for retaining jurisdiction over settlement agreements, citing the controlling Supreme Court precedent (Kokkonen) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Arata). It correctly notes that the parties' stipulation was a 'generic request' lacking the necessary 'good cause' showing. The remedy of denying the stipulation and allowing the parties to amend it to include a good cause showing is procedurally appropriate and consistent with the cited authorities.
Opinion
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRIAN HAGEN, an individual Case No.: 25-cv-02189-GPC-BLM 12 ORDER DENYING JOINT Plaintiff, STIPULATION FOR DISMISSAL 13 v. WITH PREJUDICE AND REQUEST 14 FOR ORDER RETAINING RESPONSIBLE MEDICAL JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE 15 SOLUTIONS CORP., a California SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 16 Corporation 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 On September 8, 2026, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal with 22 prejudice and request for order retaining jurisdiction to enforce settlement 23 agreement. (Dkt. No. 18.) 24 25 “[A] federal court may retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement where 26 27 the court's order of dismissal incorporates the terms of the settlement agreement, or 1 settlement.” Gonzalez v. United States, No. 16-cv-1792-MMA (KSC), 2017 WL 2 1094074, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 3 of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994)). “[T]he mere fact that the parties agree that the 4 5 court should exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding upon the court.” Arata 6 v. Nu Skin Int’l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). Courts usually decline 7 generic requests to retain jurisdiction; rather, the parties must show good cause for 8 9 the Court to retain jurisdiction. Lopez v. AT&T Mobility Servs., LLC, Case No. 10 1:20-cv-01219-SAB, 2024 WL 21537, at *1 (E.D. Ca. Jan. 2, 2024). 11 12 Here, the parties make a generic request for the Court retain jurisdiction to 13 enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and fail to provide good cause for the 14 15 Court to retain jurisdiction after dismissal for “mere performance of the finalized 16 settlement agreement.” See id. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the joint 17 stipulation for dismissal and request for order retaining jurisdiction to enforce 18 19 settlement agreement. See Valencia v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., No. 1:25-CV-00989- 20 JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 3776640, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025) (“absent a specific 21 request and showing of good cause, the Court generally declines generic requests to 22 23 retain jurisdiction following dismissal.”). The parties shall file an amended 24 / / / 25 26 / / / 27 1 || stipulation and dismissal providing good cause why the Court should retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement on or before September 15, 2026.
4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: September 8, 2026 7 sales Os 7 Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28