Johnson v. Alexander et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 11/16/09 ORDERING dispositional documents be filed no later than 12/7/09; the status conference is RE-SET to 1/19/2010 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Carlos, K)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 On 21 Settlement in which Plaintiff states "the parties have settled this 22 action." Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later 23 than December 7, 2009. 24 construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, 25 and a dismissal order could be filed. 26 to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may 27 be grounds for sanctions."). 28 1 See L.R. 16-160(b) ("A failure Failure to respond by this deadline may be November 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Notice of v. ROBERT M. ALEXANDER, individually and d/b/a Robert M. Alexander, D.D.S., MS; David W. Wistrom, individually and d/b/a David W. Wistrom, D.D.S.; FLG Holdings, LLC, a California limited liability company; ANDREW M. HARRAGON, individually and as Trustee of the Harragon Family Trust created November 8, 1999; JOAN E. HARRAGON, indvidually and as Trustee of the Harragon Family Trust Created November 8, 1989, Defendants. SCOTT N. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:09-cv-01763-GEB-DAD ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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
1

The status conference scheduled for November 30, 2009 is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on January 19, 2010, in the event 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. Dated: November 16, 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 discontinuance of calendering 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