Johnson v. Triple Crown Auto Sales, Inc. et al

Filing 22

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/28/2011 ORDERING that dispositional documents shall be filed by 3/17/2011. The final pretrial conference set for 2/21/2011 will remain on calendar. (Zignago, K.)

Johnson v. Triple Crown Auto Sales, Inc. et al

Doc. 22

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 v. Triple Crown Auto Sales, Inc., Individually and d/b/a Triple Crown Auto Sales; Robert D. Bone, Individually and d/b/a Triple Crown Auto Sales, Individually and as Co-Trustee of Bone Family Revocable Trust of 2000, dated June 6, 2000; Lisa M. Bone, Individually and as Co-Trustee of Bone Family Revocable Trust of 2000, dated June 6, 2000, Defendants. ________________________________ Scott N. Johnson, Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2:10-cv-00098-GEB-DAD ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Defendants filed a "Notice of Settlement" on February 25, 2011, in which they state, "this matter has settled[, and] . . . [t]he settling parties anticipate having the dispositional documents on file with the Court within twenty (20) calendar days." (ECF No. 21.) Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than March 17, 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.").

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 Dated:

The final pretrial conference scheduled for November 21, 2011, will remain on calendar in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. February 28, 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 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

1