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)

Download PDF
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?