Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association et al

Filing 178

ORDER DENYING 175 PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR AN ORDER REQURING DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANTS INSURER TO APPEAR. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 12/6/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2011)

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