IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
July 9, 2009
WILLIAM FLOODMAN, PLAINTIFF,
NATIONAL ENTERPRISE SYSTEMS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
On July 8, 2009, Plaintiff filed a "Request and Order for Voluntary Dismissal" in which he states "the Court shall retain jurisdiction solely for settlement enforcement purposes." However, Plaintiff fails to provide facts evincing retention of jurisdiction is necessary, and mistakenly assumes the court would retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement it has not seen. "Moreover, the mere fact that the parties agree that the court exercise continuing jurisdiction is not binding on the court." Arata v. NuSkin Int'l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265, 1269 (9th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the proposed order Plaintiff filed July 8, 2009, will not be signed.
However, this action is dismissed since Plaintiff has requested that it be dismissed. See generally Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc., 616 F.2d 191, 194-95 (5th Cir. 1980)(indicating even when parties fail to enter a "formal dismissal... in the record" the court may dismiss the action when it is evident that the parties intended to have the action dismissed).
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.