Johnson v. Vartanova et al

Filing 36

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 4/21/2011 ORDERING that a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 5/18/2011. The Final Pretrial Conference set for 4/25/2011 is CONTINUED to 6/13/2011 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. A joint pretrial statement shall be filed 7 days prior to the final pretrial conference. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SCOTT N. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10

13

TATYANA VARTANOVA; EDWARD D.
JENNINGS; STEVE TRISTANT;
OLGA PIKALOVA DDS, INC.;
PLATINUM GROUP OF INVESTMENTS,
LLC; RANJEET GILL,

14

Defendants.
________________________________

11
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-01376-GEB-DAD
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

15
Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on April 18, 2011, in

16
17

which

he

states,

“the

parties

have

settled

this

action[,

and

18

d]ispositional documents will be filed within (30) calendar days.” (ECF

19

No. 35.)

20

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

21

than May 18, 2011. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed

22

as

23

dismissal order could be filed.

24

file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be

25

grounds for sanctions.”).

consent

to

dismissal

of

this

action

without

prejudice,

and

a

See E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) (“A failure to

26

Further, the final pretrial conference scheduled for April 25,

27

2011, is continued to commence at 1:30 p.m. on June 13, 2011, in the

28

event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not

1

1

otherwise dismissed.1

2

(7) days prior to the final pretrial conference.

3
4

A joint pretrial statement shall be filed seven

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 21, 2011

5
6

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

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