Johnson v. Delta National Bancorp et al
Filing
20
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/30/14: Dispositional document shall be filed no later than December 8, 2014. Initial Scheduling Conference RESET for 1/26/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr.. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
Scott Johnson,
8
9
10
11
12
13
No.
2:14-cv-01083-GEB-EFB
Plaintiff,
v.
Delta National Bancorp, a
California Corporation;
Watheq Nabeel Abdelhaq; and
Does 1-10,
ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION
Defendant.
14
15
AND RELATED CROSS-COMPLAINT
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on October 23,
2014, in which he states:
a global settlement has been reached in the
above-captioned
case.
The
settlement
agreement has been drafted and is circulating
for execution. . . .
The Plaintiff, therefore, applies to this
Honorable Court to vacate all currently set
dates
with
the
expectation
that
the
Stipulation for Dismissal with prejudice as
to all parties will be filed within 45 days.
(Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 17.)
26
Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no
27
later than December 8, 2014. Failure to respond by this deadline
28
may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without
1
1
prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed.
2
R. 160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the date
3
prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”).
See E.D. Cal.
4
Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on
5
November 24, 2014, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on
6
January
7
filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1
8
status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the
9
status conference.
10
11
26,
2015,
in
the
event
no
dispositional
document
is
A joint
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
October 30, 2014
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?