Johnson v. Salim et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 5/31/12. Dispositional documents due no later than 7/2/12; Initial Scheduling Conference reset for 8/6/2012 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Scott N. Johnson,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

12

Khalid Salim, Individually and
d/b/a Casa Furniture; Claudia R.
Delgadoramirez, Individually and
d/b/a Las Islitas Mariscos;
Tommy G. Chi,

13

Defendants.
________________________________

10
11

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

2:12-cv-00725-GEB-KJN
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

14
Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on May 31, 2012, in

15
16

which

he

states,

“the

parties

have

settled

this

action[,

and

17

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

18

No. 9.)

19

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later

20

than July 2, 2012. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed

21

as

22

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.”).

consent

to

dismissal

of

this

action

without

prejudice,

and

a

25

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on June

26

25, 2012, is continued to August 6, 2012, commencing at 9:00 a.m., 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:

May 31, 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