Weeks v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Filing 210

ORDER CLOSING CASE signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/13/2018. CASE CLOSED. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 TREVOR WEEKS, 10 Plaintiff ORDER CLOSING CASE 11 12 CASE NO. 1:13-CV-1641 AWI JLT v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., 13 Defendant 14 15 On March 22, 2018, the Court acknowledged the parties’ representations that a signed 16 17 settlement agreement was in place. See Doc. No. 201. The Court declined to exercise ancillary 18 jurisdiction over the fee dispute between Plaintiff’s various counsel. See id. Relying on Local 19 Rule 160(b),1 the Court viewed the representations of the parties as amended settlement notices 20 and ordered the parties to file dismissal papers within 21 days of service of the March 22, 2018 21 order. See id. The Court warned the parties that the failure to file dismissal papers would result in 22 the Court sua sponte dismissing the case with prejudice. See id.; see also Local Rule 110 23 (“Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may 24 be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or Rule or 25 within the inherent power of the Court.”). 26 27 28 1 Local Rule 160(b) reads: “Upon such notification of disposition or resolution of an action or motion, the Court shall fix a date upon which the documents disposing of the action or motion must be filed, which date shall not be more than twenty- one (21) days from the date of said notification, absent good cause. The Court may, on good cause shown, extend the time for filing the dispositional papers. A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions. See L.R. 272.” 1 The 21-day deadline for the parties to file dismissal papers has now passed. Given the 2 Court’s warning about a sua sponte dismissal, the Court can only conclude that the parties intend 3 for a dismissal with prejudice to occur. Therefore, given that the parties did not obey the Court’s 4 order and file dismissal papers despite the Court’s warning, the violation of Local Rule 160(b), 5 and the fact that a settlement of the claims between Plaintiff and Defendant has been achieved, the 6 Court will follow through on its warning and dismiss this case with prejudice. 7 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 10 1. 11 12 Pursuant to Local Rules 110 and 160(b), as well as the Court’s March 22, 2018 order, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; and 2. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case. 13 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 13, 2018 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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?