Johnson v. Matthew et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/28/12 ORDERING that a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 4/27/2012. Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 4/23/12, is CONTINUED to 5/21/2012 at 09:00 AM. A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior the Status Conferce. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Scott N. Johnson,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

10
11
12
13

Payless Shoesource, Inc.,

Defendant.
________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-02849-GEB-CKD
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on March 27, 2012, in

14
15

which

he

states,

“the

parties

have

settled

this

action[,

and

16

d]ispositional documents will be filed within (30) calendar days.” (ECF

17

No. 13.)

18

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

19

than April 27, 2012. Failure to respond by this deadline may be

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

grounds for sanctions.”).

24

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on April

25

23, 2012, is continued to May 21, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the

26

event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not

27
28
1

1

otherwise dismissed.1 A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14)

2

days prior to the Status Conference.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

March 28, 2012

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