Sandoval v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc.

Filing 26

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/24/2015 ORDERING 25 that dispositional documents shall be filed no later than 4/8/2015; the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 4/6/2015 is CONTINUED to 5/4/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed; a joint status report shall be filed 14 days prior to the status conference.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

NICASIO SANDOVAL,

9
10
11
12
13

No.

1:14-cv-01466-GEB-BAM

Plaintiff,
v.
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC.,

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

Defendant.

14
15

Defendant filed a “Notice of Settlement” on March 18,

16

2015, in which it states that “the lawsuit has been settled[,]”

17

and “requests 21 days for plaintiff to file a dismissal to allow

18

the parties time to prepare and execute a written settlement

19

agreement.” (Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 25.)

20

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no

21

later than Wednesday, April 8, 2015. Failure to respond by this

22

deadline may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action

23

without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D.

24

Cal. R. 160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the

25

date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”).

26

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on

27

April 6, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on May 4,

28

2015, in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this
1

1

action is not otherwise dismissed.1

2

be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

3
4

A joint status report shall

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 24, 2015

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The status conference will remain on calendar, because the mere
representation that a case has been settled does not justify vacating a
scheduling proceeding. Cf. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987)
(indicating that a representation that claims have been settled does not
necessarily establish the existence of a binding settlement agreement).

2