Johnson v.Grewal et al

Filing 25

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 04/19/10 Final Pretrial Conference re-set for 6/7/2010 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Joint final pretrial statement due 7 days prior to conference. (Williams, D)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SCOTT N. JOHNSON, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SUKHCHARNJIT K. GREWAL, ) individually and d/b/a Mountain ) Mike's Pizza; Will S. Roxburgh, ) individually and d/b/a Fleet ) Feet of Fair Oaks; Brockway Capital) Corporation, individually and ) d/b/a Max Muscle, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 02:08-cv-01549-GEB-KJM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION

On April 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement in which he states "the parties have settled this action" and dispositional document "will be filed within (30) calendar days." Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than May 17, 2010. consent to Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a

dismissal order could be filed.

See L.R. 160(b) ("A failure to file

dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions."). The final pretrial conference scheduled for May 10, 2010, is continued to commence at 1:30 p.m. on June 7, 2010, 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 final pretrial conference

statement shall be filed seven days prior to the final pretrial conference.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 19, 2010

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

The final pretrial conference will remain on calendar, because the mere representation that a case 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