Oberg v. Capital One Bank, USA N.A, et al

Filing 12

ORDER re 11 Settlement and Disposition signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/10/15: IT IS ORDERED that a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 6/29/15. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as consent to dismiss al of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 6/22/15 is CONTINUED to commence 7/20/2015 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr., in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed. (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

Danial Oberg,

9

12
13

2:15-cv-00448-GEB-EFB

Plaintiff,

10
11

No.

v.
Capital One Bank, USA N.A.,
a/k/a Capital One Services,
LLC; CACH LLC; and Neuheisel
Law Firm, P.C.,

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND
DISPOSITION

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on June 8, 2015,

17

in which he states: “The parties have reached a settlement in the

18

above-referenced

19

stipulation for dismissal within the next twenty-one (21) days.”

20

(Pl.’s Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 11.)

case.

The

parties

anticipate

filing

a

21

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no

22

later than June 29, 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

June 22, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on July 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:

June 10, 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