Mitchell v. DaViga, et al.

Filing 179

ORDER REJECTING Parties' Stipulation and REQUIRING Filing of Status Reports signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 11/27/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COREY MITCHELL, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 CHAVEZ, et al., 15 No. 1:13-cv-01324-DAD-EPG (PC) ORDER REJECTING PARTIES’ STIPULATION AND REQUIRING FILING OF STATUS REPORTS Defendants. (Doc. No. 177) 16 17 18 On August 15, 2017, this action proceeded to trial on plaintiff Mitchell’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 19 claim for failure to protect brought against defendants G. Chavez and Lt. Sheldon. (Doc. No. 20 154.) On August 18, 2017, the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor and the punitive 21 damages phase of the bifurcated trial was scheduled to commence on October 23, 2017 at 1:00 22 p.m. (Doc. No. 158.) Prior to the punitive damages phase of the trial, however, at the request of 23 the parties a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin was convened on the 24 morning of August 23, 2017. (Doc. No. 167.) As a result, the parties reached a settlement 25 agreement and the jury verdict was set aside. (Doc. Nos. 167, 168.) 26 On November 7, 2017, the parties filed with the court a stipulation for voluntary dismissal 27 with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). (Doc. No. 177.) That 28 stipulation provides both for the dismissal of the action and for the court to retain jurisdiction 1 1 over this action with respect to the “interpretation and enforcement of the settlement agreement 2 and to determine the issue of attorney fees and costs.” (Doc. No. 177) (emphasis added). The 3 court finds the terms of the parties’ proposed stipulation and order confusing at best and arguably 4 internally inconsistent as a matter of law. See Keith Manufacturing, Co. v. Butterfield, 256 F. 5 Supp.3d 1123, 1128-32 (D. Or. 2017), appeal filed June 28, 2017. Accordingly, the undersigned 6 declines to sign the proposed order accompanying the parties’ stipulation. 7 In light of the parties’ suggestion that a motion for attorney’s fees may still be filed and 8 the court’s need to bring this litigation to a close, both parties will be required to file status reports 9 within fourteen days of the date of this order advising the court whether a motion for attorney’s 10 fees and costs will be filed and, if so, when counsel proposes such a motion be filed and heard. In 11 addition, the parties shall address any other matters they believe appropriate to the expeditious 12 closing of this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: November 27, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?