Ruth Hancock v. Target Corporation et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT 20 by Judge Dean D. Pregerson . (lc). Modified on 1/15/2013 (lc).

1
2

O

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RUTH HANCOCK,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

TARGET CORPORATION,

15

Defendant.
___________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. EDCV 10-01933 DDP (CWx)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLEMENT
[Dkt. No. 20]

16
17

Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce

18

Settlement.

19

have determined through information provided by [Plaintiff] . . .

20

that the conditional payments made on behalf of [Plaintiff] related

21

to this claim are approximately $tbd.”

22

emphasis added).

23

provide conditional payment information, the letter submitted to

24

Defendant referenced an incident separate and apart from that at

25

issue here.

26

///

27

///

28

The settlement agreement provides that “the parties

(Mot., Ex. A) (first

While it appears that Plaintiff attempted to

It does not appear that Plaintiff has yet provided

1

Defendant with the information necessary to process the settlement

2

payment.

3

DENIED.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement is

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9
10

Dated: January 15, 2013
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2