Johnson v. Premier Pools, Incorporated et al

Filing 6

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSTION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 01/08/2009 ORDERING that dispositional documents shall be filed no later than 1/26/09. The status (pretrial scheduling) conference has been reset to 3/16/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. (Streeter, J)

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 SCOTT N. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) PREMIER POOLS, INCORPORATED, d/b/a ) Premier Pools & Spas; P & H ) PROPERTIES, a California General ) Partnership, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 2:08-cv-02377-GEB-DAD ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION; and ORDER CONTINUING STATUS (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff's Status Report filed January 5, 2009, states "Plaintiff and Defendant[s] have settled this action and are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement." However, Plaintiff

fails to indicate when a dispositional document is expected to be filed. Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

than January 26, 2009. See L.R. 16-160(b) (stating a date for filing a document disposing of the action "shall not be more than twenty (20) calendar days from the date of [the settlement] notification . . . "). Failure to file a dispositional document by this deadline

may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. 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 Dated:

The status (pretrial scheduling) conference scheduled for January 20, 2009, is reset to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 16, 2009, in the event that the above referenced dispositional document is not filed. Further, a joint status report shall be filed fourteen

(14) days prior to the status conference.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. January 8, 2009

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge

The status (pretrial scheduling)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