Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association et al

Filing 178


Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 MARIA E. PINTOS, 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 PACIFIC CREDITORS ASSOCIATION, 8 Defendant. 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER REQURING DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT’S INSURER TO APPEAR (Docket No. 175) ________________________________/ 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California No. C 03-5471 CW On September 27, 2011, upon having been advised that the 11 parties had agreed to a settlement, the Court entered a 12 conditional order of dismissal of this cause. 13 Court stated that if any party certified to the Court, with proof 14 of service upon the opposing counsel, within ninety days, that the 15 agreed consideration for the settlement had not been delivered, 16 the order would be vacated and the cause restored to the calendar 17 to be set for trial. In that order, the 18 On November 18, 2011, Plaintiff Maria E. Pintos certified to 19 the Court that she had not yet received the settlement amount and 20 that it had been represented to her that Defendant Pacific 21 Creditors Association’s insurer, Travelers, would issue and mail 22 payment for the settlement amount by the week of November 7-11, 23 2011. 24 Defendant and Travelers to appear and explain why the settlement 25 amount had not yet been paid. 26 Plaintiff requested that the Court issue an order requiring On December 5, 2011, the Court issued an order granting 27 Plaintiff’s request in part and requiring Defendant to file a 28 response within twenty-four hours, explaining the delay and 1 stating when payment will be received or confirming that Plaintiff 2 has received payment already. 3 Court would set the matter for a hearing if Defendant’s response 4 was not satisfactory. 5 The order further stated that the On December 5, 2011, Defendant filed a response, stating that 6 Plaintiff received the settlement payment on December 2, 2011. 7 Defendant further stated that it took longer than it expected to 8 get the settlement checks from its insurance company, because the 9 insurance company has gone through significant reorganization United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 since 2003, the time of Plaintiff’s claim, and that as a result it 11 took an unexpected amount of time for the insurance company to 12 authorize and process the payment. 13 Because it appears that the settlement amount has now been 14 paid in full, that Defendant acted in good faith and that the 15 delay was the result of circumstances beyond Defendant’s control, 16 the Court declines to set this matter for hearing at this time. 17 Plaintiff may renew her request within two weeks of the date 18 of this order as either a motion to set aside the conditional 19 order of dismissal or a motion to enforce the settlement agreement 20 if she is able to truthfully provide a further certification to 21 the Court that the agreed consideration for the settlement has not 22 been delivered. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 25 26 Dated: 12/6/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 27 28 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?