United States of America v. 2005 Toyota 4-Runner Truck et al

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/20/11 ORDERING that dispositional documents due no later than 11/18/11; Status Conference is reset for 12/12/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.; Joint Status Report due 14 days prior to conference. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
2005 TOYOTA 4-RUNNER TRUCK, VIN:
JTEBU14R750068701, CALIFORNIA
LICENSE: 5MGM397; APPROXIMATELY
$1,193.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY; and
APPLE 16 GB IPAD,
Defendants.
________________________________

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

2:11-cv-02272-GEB-KJN
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

17

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on October 14, 2011,

18

in which it states, the parties “have reached a settlement” and requests

19

“a brief extension to [file dispositional documents to] November 18,

20

2011 . . . to allow the publication period to run.” (ECF No. 10.)

21

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

22

than November 18, 2011. Failure to respond by this deadline may be

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

grounds for sanctions.”).

27
28

Further,

the

Status

Conference

scheduled

for

hearing

on

November 7, 2011, is continued to December 12, 2011, commencing at 9:00

1

1

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

2

is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint status report shall be filed

3

fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 20, 2011

6
7

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge

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