National Interstate Ins. Co. v. Mike Tamana Freight Lines, LLC., et al.
Filing
27
ORDER DENYING 26 Motion to Stay Action, REQUIRING Payment of $100 in Sanctions, DISCHARGING Further Sanctions, and REQUIRING Parties to File Dispositional Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/10/2022. The parties shall jointly and severally be obligated to pay the Clerk of the Court $100.00 in sanctions within five days of entry of this order. The Court's 25 May 9, 2022 order requiring daily sanctions, and any further sanctions arising therefrom is hereby DISCHARGED. The parties shall file dispositional documents within five (5) days of entry of this order . (Rivera, O)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
v.
MIKE TAMANA FREIGHT LINES, LLC,
et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 1:20-cv-01829-DAD-SAB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY
ACTION, REQUIRING PAYMENT OF $100 IN
SANCTIONS, DISCHARGING FURTHER
SANCTIONS, AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO
FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS
(ECF Nos. 24, 25, 26)
FIVE DAY DEADLINE
17
18
On March 17, 2022, the parties submitted a notice of settlement. (ECF No. 20.) On
19
March 18, 2022, the Court issued an order vacating all matters and requiring the parties to file
20
dispositional documents by April 7, 2022. (ECF No. 21.) As of April 7, 2022, the parties had not
21
filed anything, and on April 11, 2022, the Court issued an order to show cause why monetary
22
sanctions should not issue for the failure to comply with the Court’s orders. (ECF No. 22.) On
23
April 15, 2022, based on the parties’ response, the Court discharged the order to show cause and
24
ordered the parties to file dispositional documents on or before May 6, 2022. (ECF No. 24.) The
25
order expressly stated that the failure to comply with the order would result in the imposition of
26
sanctions. (Id. at 2.) After the May 6, 2022 deadline passed and the parties filed no dispositional
27
documents nor made any request for an extension of the deadline, on May 9, 2022, the Court
28
issued an order imposing daily sanctions of $100 on the parties until dispositional documents are
1
1
filed, or the order April 15, 2022 order is otherwise addressed. (ECF No. 25.) On the same date,
2
May 9, 2022, the parties filed a stipulated request to stay this action for a period of two years,
3
until May 30, 2024, to allow for the parties to complete the terms of their fully executed
4
settlement agreement that provides for the settlement sum to be paid in installments over a period
5
of two years. (ECF No. 26.)
6
The Court finds insufficient cause for this Court to hold this action in a stayed status for a
7
period of two years, simply for the parties to complete the payment obligations under their
8
settlement agreement. The payment of monetary settlement amounts after dismissal of an action
9
is entirely routine and standard, and the parties have not presented any specific factual
10
circumstances, nor legal justification for their request. The fact that the parties only made a
11
request to stay this action nearly two months after informing the Court of their settlement, and
12
after an order to show cause and order imposing sanctions for the failure to file dispositional
13
documents were issued, reflects poorly on the necessity of the instant request.
14
The parties did not address the failure to file dispositional documents by the deadline nor
15
made any reference to or request to discharge further daily sanctions. Nonetheless, in the interest
16
of expediency, the Court shall discharge further sanctions and allow the parties an additional five
17
(5) days to file dispositional documents. While the Court finds no good cause to grant the
18
requested two year stay of this action, the parties may consider a request that the Court retain
19
jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement after dismissal. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
20
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994). However, the parties must make a sufficient
21
showing of good cause to do so, as the Court is generally disinclined to retain jurisdiction, and the
22
mere fact that payments on a settlement agreement are to be made after a case is dismissed is
23
entirely routine and does not demonstrate good cause to deviate from the Court’s general practice.
24
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1.
The parties’ motion to stay this action (ECF No. 26) is DENIED;
26
2.
The parties shall jointly and severally be obligated to pay the Clerk of the Court
27
28
$100.00 in sanctions within five days of entry of this order;
3.
The Court’s May 9, 2022 order requiring daily sanctions, and any further sanctions
2
1
arising therefrom (ECF No. 25) is hereby DISCHARGED; and
2
4.
3
The parties shall file dispositional documents within five (5) days of entry of this
order.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
May 10, 2022
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?