Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Beatriz Ruiz filed suit against Costco Wholesale Corporation and Does 1–50 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. On October 19, 2026, the parties jointly moved to dismiss the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), indicating they had reached a settlement. In their joint motion (ECF No. 8), the parties also requested that the court retain jurisdiction for enforcement of the Settlement Agreement.
The court recognized that federal courts may retain jurisdiction over a settlement agreement where the dismissal order incorporates the settlement terms or explicitly states the court retains jurisdiction, citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994), and Gonzalez v. United States, 2017 WL 1094074 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2017). However, the court noted it is under no obligation to retain such jurisdiction and may do so only if it chooses, citing LA All. for Hum. Rts. v. City of Los Angeles, 2023 WL 3431905 (C.D. Cal. May 2, 2023).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the joint motion to dismiss and dismissed the action in its entirety with prejudice, with each party to bear their own costs and fees. However, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over the matter for purposes of enforcing the Settlement Agreement. The court found that because the parties did not attach the Settlement Agreement to their motion, nor did counsel provide any reason or argument as to why the court should retain jurisdiction for enforcement purposes, the request for retention of jurisdiction was unsupported.
In declining to retain jurisdiction, the court relied on Valencia v. Nissan N. Am., Inc., 2025 WL 3776640 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 31, 2025), which noted that courts generally decline generic requests to retain jurisdiction following dismissal, and Vestin Realty Mortg. II, Inc. v. Klaas, 2014 WL 12898761 (S.D. Cal. July 25, 2014), which denied an unsupported request to retain jurisdiction over a settlement. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the matter.
Key Takeaways
- A joint motion to dismiss under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires only the parties' stipulation; the court granted dismissal with prejudice here.
- Retention of jurisdiction over a settlement agreement is discretionary, not mandatory, and requires the court's explicit incorporation of terms or an explicit statement of retained jurisdiction.
- Parties seeking retention of jurisdiction must attach the settlement agreement or provide substantive argument supporting retention; a generic request without support will be denied.
- The Southern District of California follows precedent from the Eastern District of California and its own prior rulings in declining unsupported requests for jurisdiction retention.
- Each party bears its own costs and fees absent a contrary agreement or court order.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the procedural requirement that parties seeking to preserve federal court jurisdiction over a private settlement must do more than make a boilerplate request. By declining jurisdiction where the settlement agreement was neither attached nor argued, the court underscores the Kokkonen principle that ancillary jurisdiction over settlements exists only when the dismissal order itself incorporates the agreement or explicitly reserves jurisdiction. The ruling serves as a practical reminder to practitioners in the Southern District of California to either embed settlement terms in the proposed dismissal order or file a separate motion with the agreement attached if they anticipate needing federal enforcement.