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