Joseph v. Parciasepe, et al.

Filing 60

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 4/6/2017 DENYING 59 Request for court intervention with respect to payment pursuant to the settlement agreement WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALONZO JAMES JOSEPH,

12
13
14

No. 2:14-cv-414-GEB-AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

T. PARCIASEPE,

15
Defendant.

16
17
18
19

On January 18, 2017, the undersigned conducted a settlement conference in this matter, in

20

the course of which the case was settled. (ECF No. 56.) At the time, the undersigned advised

21

plaintiff that payment pursuant to the terms of the settlement could take up to six (6) months, and

22

that he should contact defendant’s counsel if payment has not yet occurred by that point. On

23

January 23, 2017, the case was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ stipulation of dismissal. (ECF

24

Nos. 57, 58.)

25

Thereafter, on March 27, 2017, the court received a letter from plaintiff dated March 22,

26

2017, indicating that he has not yet received payment and that defendant’s counsel has not

27

responded to a letter from plaintiff inquiring regarding payment. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff

28

acknowledges that only approximately 63 days had passed since the settlement conference at the
1

1
2

time that he sent the March 22, 2017 letter, but nonetheless seeks the court’s intervention. (Id.)
As plaintiff was advised at the settlement conference, payment can take up to six (6)

3

months to occur. Therefore, plaintiff’s request for court intervention is premature. Plaintiff shall

4

wait until expiration of the six (6) month period before contacting defendant’s counsel. If, at that

5

juncture, payment has not yet occurred, and plaintiff does not receive a response from defendant’s

6

counsel within a reasonable period of time, plaintiff may renew his request for court intervention

7

at that time.

8
9
10
11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s request for court intervention
with respect to payment pursuant to the settlement agreement (ECF No. 59) is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE as premature.
Dated: April 6, 2017

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2