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
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?