Hudgins v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
Filing
12
ORDER re Settlement and Disposition signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/21/2011 ORDERING that a dispositional document shall be filed no later than November 21, 2011. Status Conference is CONTINUED 12/12/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. in the event no dispositional document is filed. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference. (Duong, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BRUCE HUDGINS,
Plaintiff,
10
11
v.
12
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
13
Defendant.
________________________________
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2:11-cv-01518-GEB-GGH
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION
15
Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on September 21,
16
2011, in which he states, the parties “have reached a settlement.” (ECF
17
No. 11.) The parties request “a period of 60 days within which to
18
complete the settlement and file a dismissal of the action.” Id.
19
Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later
20
than November 21, 2011. Failure to respond by this deadline may be
21
construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and
22
a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) (“A failure to
23
file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be
24
grounds for sanctions.”).
25
Further,
the
Status
Conference
scheduled
for
hearing
on
26
October 31, 2011, is continued to December 12, 2011, commencing at 9:00
27
a.m., in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action
28
1
1
is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint status report shall be filed
2
fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
September 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 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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?