Normally, Sir, I would assume you could comprehend what is being said here. The reasoning is clear:
1. It's a "JOINT" motion by BOTH Parties
2. Both request to dismiss the original action requested from the court.
3. Since Both Parties have reached THE AGREEMENT, dismissing the case with prejudice will ensure that one of the Parties cannot come back and reopen the case.
4. They ask to Court to keep jurisdiction ... uh ... just in case it happens that somehow the matter is revisited: the Court will have a record of dismissal, militating against any future effort to revisit the issues.
5. It doesn't say who prevailed in the matter, but since Both Parties reached an "settlement" agreement, we can assume both parties had something to gain or to obviate by settling now.
This is how I read the Joint Motion. Are you saying you ... uh ... actually read it differently?
And ... as Gold prospector notes below ... "Settlement Agreement was fully executed, triggering various obligations as stated therein."
