Sehic v. Anderson et al

Filing 34

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/26/13 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 4/12/13 MOTION to AMEND 18 is DENIED as having been rendered moot by the settlement agreement reached on 5/24/13; Plaintiff's 4/23/13 MOTION for Prel iminary Injunction 19 is DENIED as having been rendered moot by the settlement agreement reached on 5/24/13; Plaintiff's 5/16/13 MOTION to CONTINUED 22 is DENIED as moot; Plaintiff's 6/4/13 MOTION to AMEND 26 is DENIED as improperl y brought in light of the settlement agreement reached on 5/24/13; Within fourteen days of the date of this order Plaintiff shall file either a copy of the parties' signed settlement agreement and Plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissa l pursuant thereto or a motion seeking to withdraw from the parties' settlement agreement that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules; and Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in an order dismissing this action for lack of prosecution. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EMIR SEHIC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-3030 DAD

v.

ORDER

WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON;
MAYUKA S. ANDERSON,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before

19

the assigned magistrate judge. By order filed March 12, 2013, the action was reassigned to the

20

undersigned.

21

On May 24, 2013, the parties appeared for hearing of plaintiff’s April 12, 2013

22

motion to amend (Doc. No. 18) and April 23, 2013 motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc.

23

No. 19.) At that hearing a settlement conference was held, the parties reached a settlement

24

agreement and the terms and conditions of that settlement agreement were placed on the record.

25

On July 26, 2013, the matter again came before the court for status conference

26

following plaintiff’s June 4, 2013 filing of a motion to amend his complaint.1 (Doc. No. 26.)

27
28

1

Although plaintiff’s filing failed to comply with the Local Rules, and could have been denied
for that reason alone, the undersigned nonetheless set the matter for status conference because
1

1

Plaintiff Emir Sehic appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Defendant William Van

2

Anderson appeared telephonically on his own behalf and defendant Mayuka Anderson appeared

3

telephonically on her own behalf.

4
5
6
7
8
9

Upon consideration of the parties’ arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the
reasons set forth in detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s April 12, 2013 motion to amend (Doc. No. 18) is denied as having
been rendered moot by the settlement agreement reached on May 24, 2013;
2. Plaintiff’s April 23, 2013 motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 19) is
denied as having been rendered moot by the settlement agreement reached on May 24, 2013;

10

3. Plaintiff’s May 16, 2013 motion to continue (Doc. No. 22) is denied as moot;

11

4. Plaintiff’s June 4, 2013 motion to amend (Doc. No. 26) is denied as improperly

12
13

brought in light of the settlement agreement reached on May 24, 2013;
5. Within fourteen days of the date of this order plaintiff shall file either a copy of

14

the parties’ signed settlement agreement and plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant

15

thereto or a motion seeking to withdraw from the parties’ settlement agreement that complies

16

with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules; and

17

6. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in an

18

order dismissing this action for lack of prosecution.

19

Dated: July 26, 2013

20
21
22

DAD:6
Ddad1\orders.consent\sehic3030.oah.072613

23
24
25
26
27
28

plaintiff’s filing indicated that the parties may have had a dispute with respect to the terms of the
parties’ settlement agreement placed on the record on May 24, 2013.
2