Hensley v. Grupe Commercial Company et al

Filing 8

ORDER re 7 SETTLEMENT and DISPOSITION signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 3/4/2015. Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Settlement" on 3/3/2015. Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 4/2/2015. Scheduling Conference is CONTINUED to commence 4/20/2015 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) in the event no dispositional document or if action is not otherwise dismissed. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ROSELYN HENSLEY,

8

11
12

2:14-cv-02273-GEB-AC

Plaintiff,

9
10

No.

v.
GRUPE COMMERCIAL COMPANY,
OAKRIDGE CENTER, TICH LUU
NGUYEN dba TOMMY’S CAFÉ, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive,

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

Defendant.

13
14

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on March 3,

15
16

2015,

in

which

17

settled” and “requests thirty (30) days in which to file the

18

dismissal in order to ensure that parties are able to perform

19

under

20

Settlement, ECF No. 7.)

the

he

terms

states,

of

the

“the

lawsuit

settlement

has

been

agreement.”

tentatively

(Notice

of

21

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no

22

later than April 2, 2015. Failure to respond by this deadline may

23

be

24

prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed.

25

R. 160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the date

26

prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”).

construed

as

consent

to

dismissal

of

this

action

without

See E.D. Cal.

27

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on

28

March 9, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on April 20,
1

1

2015, in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this

2

action is not otherwise dismissed.1

3

be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

4
5

A joint status report shall

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 4, 2015

6
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