1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 SAN JOSE DIVISION 5 6 MADISON LAIRD, Case No. 5:24-cv-00112-EJD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND CONTINUED JURISDICTION OVER 8 v. SETTLEMENT 9 AVANADE INC., 10 Defendant. 11 The Court is in receipt of the parties’ most recent Joint Status Report. ECF No. 38. The 12 parties reached settlement on March 13, 2025, and have since signed the final agreement. Jd. The 5 13 parties request the Court continue the upcoming status conference for a minimum of four months 14 || to allow time for the parties to complete terms and conditions of the agreement. Id. 3 15 Given the parties’ representation that this matter has been settled, the Court orders this a 16 || case DISMISSED. The Court interprets the parties’ request for a continuance as a request for the 3 17 || Court to retain jurisdiction over the settlement. The Court therefore retains jurisdiction to oversee 18 || any disputes regarding the enforcement of the settlement. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 19 Co.,

(1994) (“In the event of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 41(a)(2), the court may, in its discretion, make . . . retention of jurisdiction over the 21 agreement[] part of its order. When dismissal occurs pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)i), the district 22 || court is empowered (with the consent of the parties) to . . . retain jurisdiction over the settlement 23 contract itself.”). The Clerk of Court shall close this case. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: December 11, 2025

EDWARD J. DAVILA 27 United States District Judge 28 || Case No.: 5:24-cv-00112-EJD ORDER OF DISMISSAL AND CONTINUED J URISDICTION OVER SETTLEMENT