American Causalty Company Of Reading, Pennsylvania et al v. Western Environmental Consultants, Inc. et al.,

Filing 139

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 2/6/12; The parties filed a Joint Status Report on January 30, 2012, in which they state: "[t]he parties have... engaged in substantive settlement discussions and have come to a tentative settlemen t agreement. The parties believe they will work out the particulars of the settlement... and that all remaining claims and active pleadings will be dismissed within 60 days of filing this report, if not sooner." (ECF No. 137, 5:3-6.) Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than March 30, 2012. 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 E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) (" A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions."). Further, American Casualty Company of Redding, Pennsylvania and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford's pending dismissal moti on (ECF No. 126), which is scheduled for hearing on March 5, 2012, is deemed withdrawn in light of the above-referenced settlement. Lastly, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on February 13, 2012, is continued to April 23, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
10

AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF
READING, PENNSYLVANIA, and
NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
OF HARTFORD, successor by merger
to TRANSCONTINENTAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiffs,
v.
WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSULTANTS, INC., a California
Corporation; and PACIFIC GAS &
ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California
Corporation; LEXINGTON INSURANCE
COMPANY; UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S
LONDON,
Defendants.
________________________________
AND RELATED CROSSCLAIMS AND
COUNTERCLAIMS
________________________________

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

2:10-cv-02806-GEB-EFB
ORDER

21

The parties filed a Joint Status Report on January 30, 2012,

22

in which they state: “[t]he parties have . . . engaged in substantive

23

settlement

24

agreement. The parties believe they will work out the particulars of the

25

settlement . . . and that all remaining claims and active pleadings will

26

be dismissed within 60 days of filing this report, if not sooner.” (ECF

27

No. 137, 5:3-6.)

discussions

and

have

come

28
1

to

a

tentative

settlement

1

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

2

than March 30, 2012. Failure to respond by this deadline may be

3

construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and

4

a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) (“A failure to

5

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

6

grounds for sanctions.”).

7

Further, American Casualty Company of Redding, Pennsylvania

8

and National Fire Insurance Company of Hartford’s pending dismissal

9

motion (ECF No. 126), which is scheduled for hearing on March 5, 2012,

10

is deemed withdrawn in light of the above-referenced settlement.

11

Lastly,

the

Status

Conference

scheduled

for

hearing

on

12

February 13, 2012, is continued to April 23, 2012,

13

a.m., in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action

14

is not otherwise dismissed.1

15

fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.

16
17

commencing at 9:00

A joint status report shall be filed

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 6, 2012

18
19

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Status 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