Edward v. Scarsella, et al

Filing 227

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Arthur L. Alarcon on 2/19/09 ORDERING that counsel for Pltf is directed to provide the Court with any information counsel may have that is responsive to Pltf's queries concerning the final settlement agreement and th e amounts disbursed, so that the Court may prepare and file an appropriate response to Pltf's requests. Counsel for Pltf is specifically asked to advise the Court whether a final settlement agreement, signed by Pltf, is required in this case. (Engbretson, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. STEPHEN SCARSELLA, et al., Defendants. ____________________________/ On November 13, 2008, counsel for Plaintiff filed a stipulation for dismissal signed by both parties, after a settlement was reached on November 3, 2008. (Doc. 224). On December 11, 2008, this Court dismissed all claims in this action with prejudice. (Doc. 225). On February 11, 2009, Plaintiff filed a pleading styled as a motion requesting settlement information, requesting information regarding a "Court Cost Fee" in the amount of $5,424, listed in the Settlement Fund Disbursement letter Plaintiff received from his counsel, dated December 12, 2008. (Doc. 226). Plaintiff has also requested that a "Detailed Settlement Agreement" be prepared, describing the "Court Cost Fee." Id. According to Plaintiff, he was never asked to sign a settlement agreement in this case and he would like to do so. In the December 12, 2008 Settlement Fund Disbursement letter sent to Plaintiff by his counsel, and attached to Plaintiff's motion (doc. 226), there is a charge in the amount of $5,424 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MEL TYRON EDWARD, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:03-cv-02584 ALA (P)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

described as "Court," in the itemized list of disbursements deducted from the overall settlement amount payable to Plaintiff. The Court is unclear as to what this charge relates. None of the costs approved for payment by the Court appear to correspond with the amount of $5,424. See e.g., Orders at Docs. 181, 182. Moreover, if the Court ordered payment of these authorized costs, it is unclear why the costs would have been charged to Plaintiff. Counsel for Plaintiff is hereby directed to provide the Court with any information counsel may have that is responsive to Plaintiff's queries concerning the final settlement agreement and the amounts disbursed, so that the Court may prepare and file an appropriate response to Plaintiff's requests. Counsel for Plaintiff is specifically asked to advise the Court whether a final settlement agreement, signed by Plaintiff, is required in this case. ///// DATED: February 19, 2009 /s/ Arthur L. Alarcón UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE Sitting by Designation

2