1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CITY OF VISTA, Case No.: 3:20-cv-00514-AHG 12 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, ORDER AMENDING DISMISSAL

ORDER TO REFLECT THE

13 v.

PARTIES’ AGREEMENT TO THE

14 TELEKOM TRANSPORTATION, LLC, COURT’S CONTINUING et al., JURISDICTION OVER THE 15

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Defendants/Counter-Claimants. 16 [ECF No. 44] 17 18 On November 24, 2020, the Court granted the parties’ Joint Motion for Voluntary 19 Dismissal (ECF No. 43), dismissing this action with prejudice after the parties settled the 20 case during the Early Neutral Evaluation Conference (“ENE”) before Magistrate Judge 21 Allison H. Goddard. ECF No. 44. 22 The parties consented to Judge Goddard to retain jurisdiction to decide all disputes 23 arising out of the settlement agreement in this action. See ECF No. 38. Indeed, the Court’s 24 continuing jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement was a settlement term discussed 25 and agreed upon by the parties during the ENE, and Judge Goddard provided guidance to 26 the parties after the ENE regarding how to complete the consent process so that the Court 27 would retain such jurisdiction. However, upon review of the record, the Court has 28 discovered that it failed to include a provision in the dismissal order making clear that the 1 |}Court would retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, which throws the Court’s 2 jurisdiction over the agreement into question. See In re Valdez Fisheries Dev. Ass'n, Inc., 3 F.3d 545, 549 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that if a district court’s dismissal order does 4 ||not explicitly retain jurisdiction or incorporate the settlement terms, “enforcement of the 5 || settlement agreement is for state courts’) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 6 ||Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381, 382 (1994)). 7 Because the record is clear that the parties intended to consent to the Court’s 8 ||jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, and the case was reassigned to Judge 9 Goddard expressly on that basis, see ECF No. 38, the Court finds the failure to explicitly 10 |/retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement in the Dismissal Order was a 11 ||‘‘mistake arising from oversight or omission” within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil 12 Procedure 60(a). Accordingly, on its own motion, the Court hereby AMENDS the 13 || Dismissal Order (ECF No. 44) to include a provision specifying that the Court shall retain 14 jurisdiction over the settlement agreement between the parties. 15 Pursuant to the parties’ explicit grant of consent (ECF No. 38) and the terms of their 16 agreement, this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement. Any disputes 17 || arising out of the parties’ settlement agreement shall be fully and finally resolved by Judge 18 || Goddard. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: May 5, 2022 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 28