Schatz v. Flowers Baking Co. of Henderson, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The parties filed a joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) following a settlement and requested the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the agreement. The court granted the motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding the enforcement of the settlement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the joint motion to dismiss the action with prejudice.“For good cause shown, the Court grants the Parties’ joint motion and dismisses this case with prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), which permits a court to dismiss an action with prejudice upon a joint stipulation of the parties. The order recites that the parties filed a notice of settlement and a joint motion, satisfying the procedural requirements for dismissal by stipulation. |
Retaining jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement.“The Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction in this matter to resolve any disputes between the Parties with respect to the enforcement of the settlement agreement.” | agree with court The court correctly cited Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. and K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson to support its discretion to retain jurisdiction. Under Kokkonen, a district court may retain jurisdiction to enforce a settlement if the settlement agreement itself provides for such retention or if the court explicitly retains it in the dismissal order, as it did here. The order explicitly states the court is exercising its discretion to retain jurisdiction for enforcement purposes, which is a permissible exercise of judicial power. |
Ordering that each party bear its own attorneys' fees and costs unless the settlement agreement provides otherwise.“Each party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs unless the settlement agreement provides otherwise.” | agree with court The court addressed the allocation of costs, which the parties had not specified in their motion. By defaulting to each party bearing their own costs absent a contrary provision in the settlement, the court applied a standard equitable approach consistent with the American Rule, ensuring a clear disposition of costs without imposing a burden on either party without contractual basis. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate authorities for retaining jurisdiction to enforce a settlement. It clearly states the basis for dismissal (joint motion under Rule 41(a)(2)) and explicitly retains jurisdiction for enforcement, satisfying the requirements of Kokkonen. The handling of costs is also appropriate given the parties' silence on the matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DAVID SCHATZ, an individual, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00513-H-LL 14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING JOINT 15 v. MOTION TO DISMISS AND RETAINING JURISDICTION 16 FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HENDERSON, LLC, a Nevada limited 17 [Doc. No. 71.] liability company; and DOES 1 through 18 50, inclusive, 19 Defendants. 20 On September 16, 2021, Plaintiff David Schatz and Defendant Flowers Baking Co. 21 of Henderson, LLC (collectively, the “Parties”) filed a notice of settlement. (Doc. No. 68.) 22 On October 20, 2021, the Parties filed a joint motion to dismiss this action with prejudice 23 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) and requested that this Court retain 24 jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement. (Doc. No. 71.) For good 25 cause shown, the Court grants the Parties’ joint motion and dismisses this case with 26 prejudice. The Court exercises its discretion to retain jurisdiction in this matter to resolve 27 any disputes between the Parties with respect to the enforcement of the settlement 28 1 ||agreement. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994); K.C. 2 ||ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014). 3 The Parties did not address the allocation of costs in their motion or stipulation. Each 4 || party will bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs unless the settlement agreement provides 5 || otherwise. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||DATED: October 26, 2021 | | | ul | | | 8 MARILYN ®. HUFF. Distri ge 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28