Johnson v. Gomez et al

Filing 29

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/17/2011 ORDERING 28 dispositional document shall be filed no later than 4/13/2011; Final Pretrial Conference continued to 5/9/2011 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; and a joint pretrial statement shall be filed 7 days prior to the final pretrial conference. (Reader, L)

Johnson v. Gomez et al

Doc. 29

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 which he v. Robert T. Murphy, Individually and as Trustee of the Murphy Family Living Trust, Dated: March 11, 1993; Velma Doris Murphy, Individually and as Trustee of the Murphy Family Living Trust, Dated: March 11, 1993, Defendants. ________________________________ Scott N. Johnson, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-cv-00314-GEB-KJN ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Settlement" on March 14, 2011, in states, "the parties have settled this action[, and

d]ispositional documents will be filed within (30) calendar days." (ECF No. 28.) Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than April 13, 2011. 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. 160(b) ("A failure to file

dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions."). Further, the final pretrial conference scheduled for March 21, 2011, is continued to commence at 1:30 p.m. on May 9, 2011, in the event

1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint pretrial statement shall be filed seven (7) days prior to the final pretrial conference. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 17, 2011

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 vacating a scheduling proceeding. 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