Miller v. S&S Hay Company et al

Filing 92

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 01/09/2017. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

WILLIAM JAKE MILLER,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8

1:12-cv-1796-LJO-SMS
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE

v.
S&S HAY CO., et al.,
Defendants.

9
10

In November 2014, after a bench trial in this case began, the parties indicated that they had

11 reached a settlement. See Doc. 83. Over a year later, because the parties had not submitted any
12 documents confirming their settlement and dismissing the case, the parties were instructed to file a joint
13 status report indicating whether they had finalized the terms of their settlement. Doc. 85. In their January
14 29, 2016 joint status report, the parties indicated they had not finalized their settlement. See Doc. 86.
15 The Court therefore ordered the parties to submit dispositional documents or, if their settlement had not
16 been finalized, a joint status report updating the Court on the status of the case by August 17, 2016.
17

The parties failed to meet that deadline. On September 23, 2016, the Court ordered the parties to

18 show cause why this case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and for their failure to obey
19 Court orders. Doc. 88. The Court directed the parties to submit dispositional documents or a joint status
20 report explaining why settlement had not been completed. Id. The parties filed a joint status report
21 indicating that they needed additional time to comply with the settlement terms, and asked that the
22 deadline to submit dispositional documents be extended until the end of 2016. Doc. 89 at 1. The parties
23 also requested that the Court exercise jurisdiction over the matter for purposes of settlement enforcement
24 until December 30, 2016. Id. at 1-2. Accordingly, the Court ordered the parties to submit dispositional
25 documents by January 6, 2017.
1

1

The parties failed to meet that deadline. Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED WITH

2

PREJUDICE for the parties’ failure to prosecute and repeated failure to comply with Court deadlines.

3

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

4
5
6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 9, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2