United States of America v. Approximately $8,590.00 in U.S. Currency

Filing 26

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISP{OSITION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/22/2009 ORDERING 25 dispositional document shall be filed no later than 2/4/2009; Status Conference reset for 3/30/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; and a joint status report shall be filed 14 days prior to the status conference.(Reader, L)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v. APPROXIMATELY $8,590.00 IN U.S. U.S. CURRENCY, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:08-cv-00957-GEB-JFM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION

On January 15, 2009, Plaintiff United States of America filed a Status Report in which it states "[t]he parties have reached a settlement in the above-captioned case and the Notice of Settlement has been filed." Therefore, a dispositional document Failure to respond

shall be filed no later than February 4, 2009.

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 2, 2009, is reset for hearing at 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2009, in the event that no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not 1

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: January 22, 2009

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