Johnson v. D.J. Johal, Inc. et al

Filing 8

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 3/8/12 ORDERING that a a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 3/28/2012. In the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed, the Status Conference is CONTINUED to 4/23/2012 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. A joint status report shall be filed 14 days prior to the Status Conference. (Kastilahn, A)

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

12

D.J. Johal, Inc., Individually
and d/b/a California Motors;
Dalbir Johal,

13

Defendants.
________________________________

11

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

2:11-cv-03293-GEB-CKD
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

14
Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on March 8, 2012, in

15
16

which

he

states,

“the

parties

have

settled

this

action[,

and

17

d]ispositional documents will be filed within (20) calendar days.” (ECF

18

No. 7.)

19

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

20

than March 28, 2012. 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 March

26

26, 2012, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 23, 2012, in

27

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

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 8, 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