Warn Industries v Champion Power Equipment

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 04/03/09 ORDERING that, pursuant to the 18 Notice of Settlement, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 05/01/09; the Status Conference is CONTINUED to 06/01/09 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 status conference. (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff's Notice of Settlement filed on April 1, 2009, states "the parties in this action have reached a settlement," and that "the settlement will be completed next week so that the parties may file the Stipulation no later than April 10, 2009." Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than May 1, 2009. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed CHAMPION POWER EQUIPMENT, INC., a California corporation, Defendant. WARN INDUSTRIES, an Oregon corporation, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:08-cv-02595-GEB-DAD ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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."). /// 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 conference scheduled for April 13, 2009, is reset for hearing on June 1, 2009 at 9:00 a.m., in the event that no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed. Further, a joint status report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the status conference.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. April 3, 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