Johnson v. Godlove Enterprises Inc., et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 02/05/08 ORDERING that per 6 Notice of Settlement filed by counsel, the dispositional document shall be filed by 02/13/08. The Status Conference is RESET to 03/31/08 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. A joint status report shall be filed 14 days prior to the conference. (Benson, A)

Johnson v. Godlove Enterprises Inc., et al

Doc. 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SCOTT N. JOHNSON, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) GODLOVE ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a ) MCDONALD'S #4446; FRANCHISE REALTY ) INTERSTATE CORPORATION, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 2:07-cv-02393-GEB-CMK ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On January 24, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement in which he states "the parties have settled this action" and "[d]ispositional documents will be filed within (20) calendar days." Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than February 13, 2008. Failure to respond by this deadline may be

construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See L.R. 16-160(b) ("A failure

to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions."). The status conference scheduled for February 19, 2008, is reset for hearing on March 31, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., in the event that no dispositional document is filed, 1
Dockets.Justia.com

or

if

this

action

is

not

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 27 28

otherwise dismissed.

Further, a joint status report shall be filed

fourteen days prior to the status conference.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 5, 2008

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

The status conference will remain on calendar, because the mere representation that an action has been settled does not justify removal of the action from a district court's trial docket. 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

1