Rios v. Ford Motor Company

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Plaintiff's Request for Further 45-60 Day Extension, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 11/20/2023. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GABRIEL C. RIOS, an individual ,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

15

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01445-ADA-CDB
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR FURTHER 45-60 DAY
EXTENSION
(ECF No. 19)

16
17
18

On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff Gabriel C. Rios (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of settlement

19

jointly executed with Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 15). In that filing,

20

Plaintiff represented he “intends to file a noticed motion” for attorneys’ fees and costs. Id.

21

Accordingly, the Court ordered that, no later than September 29, 2023, either the parties file

22

dispositional documents or Plaintiff file his motion for attorneys’ fees. (ECF No. 16).

23

Instead, on September 29, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff filed a declaration in which he

24

requested an additional 45-60 days within which to file either dispositional documents or the

25

referenced motion for attorneys’ fees given that the surrender of the vehicle at issue in this action

26

had not occurred. (ECF No. 17). The Court found good cause to grant Plaintiff’s request, and

27

ordered Plaintiff file either dispositional documents or the referenced motion for attorneys’ fees no

28

later than November 17, 2023. (ECF No. 18).

1

Instead, on November 17, 2023, counsel for Plaintiff filed another declaration virtually

2

identical to his September 29 declaration in which he requested an additional 45-60 days within

3

which to file either dispositional documents or the referenced motion for attorneys’ fees given that

4

the surrender of the vehicle at issue in this action had not occurred. Counsel attests his “office

5

reached out to Defense counsel via e-mail inquiring for an update regarding the status of the vehicle

6

surrender” on November 7, 2023. Id. ¶ 9. Counsel further represents that he is unable to accurately

7

prepare a fee motion because performance under the parties’ settlement agreement is ongoing and

8

his office “continues to incur fees.” Id. ¶¶ 6, 7, 9.

9

Since it is clear from the pleadings that the parties have settled their respective claims, the

10

claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the

11

parties have not yet entered a stipulated dismissal. This dismissal order could issue since “literal

12

compliance with the stipulation requirement has not been required where the agreement of all

13

parties is apparent.” Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009)

14

(internal citation and quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th

15

Cir. 1986).

16

Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for his second request to delay by another 45 to

17

60 days dismissal of this case. Nevertheless, the Court declines to recommend dismissal at this

18

juncture as it is apparent the parties have worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution of their

19

claims. Accordingly, the Court will grant the parties 14 days to file an appropriate stipulation for

20

dismissal – no further extensions will be granted.

21

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file either

22

dispositional documents or a motion for attorneys’ fees no later than December 4, 2023.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

November 20, 2023

___________________

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2