Cuellar et al v. Alamillo et al

Filing 91

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on September 8, 2011. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/8/2011: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (ofr, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

JUAN CARLOS CUELLAR; JOSE
ALBERTO
GARCIA;
JORGE
ALEGRIA; JORGE CALDERON; and
ISMAEL CALDERON,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
)
ANTHONY FIDEL ALAMILLO;
)
FIDEL CABRAL ALAMILLO;
CARRIE ANN ALAMILLO; C&F
)
ALAMILLO STEEL, A PARTNERSHIP )
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. C09-04047 PSG

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH
PREJUDICE COURT TO RETAIN
JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE
SETTLMENT AGREEMENT

21
22

This matter came before this Court on August 30, 2011 at 2:00 p.m. the

23

Honorable Paul Singh Grewal presiding for an Order to Show Cause Hearing

24

regarding the status of a settlement between all remaining parties to this action.
25
26

Plaintiffs appeared through counsel Tomas E. Margain. Defendants ANTHONY

27

FIDEL ALAMILLO and FIDEL CABRAL ALAMILLO appeared in pro per.

28
{00272997.DOC}

1

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

1

Plaintiff’s counsel represented to the Court that a complete settlement had

2

been entered into the record after a July 15, 2011 Settlement Conference and that

3

all three Plaintiffs had signed a subsequent written settlement agreement

4
5

contemplated by the settlement placed on the record. This agreement was also

6

signed by all three Defendants. However, two of the Plaintiffs were in the process

7

of getting the signed agreement back to Mr. Margain’s Office. It was noted that

8
9
10
11

Defendants are not obligated to make payments until they receive the signed
settlement agreement from all three Plaintiffs. Plaintiff’s counsel asked that the
case be Dismissed with prejudice with the Court to retain jurisdiction to enforce

12
13

the settlement agreement and read a portion of the agreement signed by Defendants

14

which contained that term.

15

Defendants asked for the case to be dismissed and also stated that they had

16
17
18

prepared and filed a declaration to that effect.
Based on the Court proceedings, pleadings on file, and good cause shown,

19

the Court Orders as follows:
20
21
22

This case is dismissed with prejudice. The Court will retain jurisdiction to
enforce the settlement agreement through December 15, 2012 only.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: September 8, 2011
Hon. Paul Singh Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

27
28
{00272997.DOC}

2

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE