Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 30, 2021

Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises

Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Docket
5:20-cv-00465
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises, Judge Cousins conditionally dismissed the settled action with prejudice, closed it administratively, and retained jurisdiction for 45 days.

Who this affects

Eric Rojas and Ci-Vil Enterprises, Inc., et al.; the action and all claims asserted in it were dismissed with prejudice.

What happened

Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises, Inc. involved Eric Rojas and the defendants named in the case. The court was told that the parties had settled the action and that no issue remained for the court to decide.

The court ordered the action and all claims dismissed with prejudice. It also directed the clerk to administratively close the case, canceled all scheduled dates, and allowed any party to seek reopening within 45 days.

Judge Nathanael M. Cousins retained jurisdiction for 45 days. The order does not describe the settlement terms or the claims’ underlying facts.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rojas v. Ci-Vil Enterprises · No. 5:20-cv-00465
Judge
Nathanael Cousins
Date
Mar. 30, 2021

Background

The court stated that it had been notified of a settlement and that no issue remained for the court’s determination. The opinion does not provide the settlement’s terms or describe the underlying claims.

Ruling

The court entered an order of conditional dismissal. It dismissed the action and all claims asserted in it with prejudice, meaning the claims cannot be brought again in the same form. The clerk was directed to administratively close the case, and all scheduled dates were vacated.

The order allowed any party to move to reopen the case if the motion was filed within 45 days. The court retained jurisdiction over the case for that 45-day period. The opinion does not state that any party disputed the settlement or the dismissal.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.