Theodore v. I.Q. Data International

Filing 7

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 6/30/2009 ORDERING 6 a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 7/27/2009; further, Status Conference reset for 8/24/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the status conference. (Reader, L)

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 On June 17, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement in which he states "a settlement of the present matter has been reached . . . which Plaintiff anticipates will be finalized within the next 40 days." Therefore, a dispositional document shall be Failure to respond by this v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant. BRYAN THEODORE, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-cv-00962-GEB-GGH ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

filed no later than July 27, 2009.

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."). Further, the status (pretrial scheduling) conference

scheduled for July 13, 2009, is rescheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on August 24, 2009, in the event that no dispositional document is 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

filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.

A joint status

report shall be filed fourteen days prior to the status conference.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 30, 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