Johnson v. MLP-Two LLC

Filing 14

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 06/14/11 ORDERING that pursuant to 12 Notice of Settlement, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 07/10/11; the 07/25/11 final pretrial conference REMAINS on calendar in the event no dispositional document is filed; a joint pretrial statement is due 7 days prior to the conference. (Benson, A.)

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
11

MLP-TWO, LLC,

12

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:09-cv-01786-GEB-JFM
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

13
Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on June 9, 2011, in

14
15

which

he

states,

“the

parties

have

settled

this

action[,

and

16

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

17

No. 12.)

18

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

19

than July 10, 2011. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed

20

as

21

dismissal order could be filed.

22

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

23

grounds for sanctions.”).

consent

to

dismissal

of

this

action

without

prejudice,

and

a

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

24

Further, the final pretrial conference scheduled for hearing

25

on July 25, 2011, will remain on calendar in the event no dispositional

26

document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1

A

27
28

1

The final pretrial conference will remain on calendar, because
(continued...)
1

1

joint pretrial statement shall be filed seven (7) days prior to the

2

final pretrial conference.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 14, 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

(...continued)
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