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
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?