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)

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