Abedi v. Schaumburg Toyota, Inc., 1:18-cv-00312-DAD-SAB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180720750
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 19, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 19, 2018
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 12) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement informing the Court that the parties have reached settlement resolving this action. 1 (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over the matter until it is fully resolved. The Court advises the parties that it generally declines to retain jurisdiction following a voluntary dismissal without a specific
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 12) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement informing the Court that the parties have reached settlement resolving this action. 1 (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over the matter until it is fully resolved. The Court advises the parties that it generally declines to retain jurisdiction following a voluntary dismissal without a specific ..
More
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS (ECF No. 12)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
On July 18, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement informing the Court that the parties have reached settlement resolving this action.1 (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff requests that the Court retain jurisdiction over the matter until it is fully resolved. The Court advises the parties that it generally declines to retain jurisdiction following a voluntary dismissal without a specific showing that it is necessary in the action. This Court is one of the busiest courts in the country and the Court sees no need to tie up two judges with retention of jurisdiction without good cause. Therefore, if the parties want the Court to retain jurisdiction following the voluntary dismissal, the notice of dismissal must show good cause.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff shall file dispositional documents on or before September 17, 2018; and
2. All pending matters and dates are VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The Court notes that on June 13, 2018, the Court had granted the parties' stipulation for a third extension of time for Defendant to file its responsive pleading. (ECF No. 11.) Defendant was ordered to file its responsive pleading on or before July 2, 2018. However, Defendant did not file its responsive pleading or another request to extend the deadline to file its responsive pleading. Defendant may not have requested another extension because it anticipated a settlement. However, Defendant is advised that deadlines are not merely suggestions and that if it is unable to comply with a deadline, it should request an extension of the deadline prior to the deadline.
Source: Leagle
