ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, Judge.

Plaintiff has requested his third extension of time in which to file documents relating to his settlement of this case. For the reasons stated below, this request is DENIED.

On October 12, 2011, plaintiff filed a complaint against Antonio Alcantar, Elena Alcantar and Frank Razo alleging violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act and California's Disabled Person's Act.

On December 20, 2011, Antonio Alcantar filed a consent to VDRP. ECF No. 6.

On January 5, 2012, plaintiff asked the Clerk to enter default against Elena Alcantar and Frank Razo. ECF No. 7. Default was entered on January 9, 2012. ECF No. 8.

On February 28, 2012, plaintiff filed a "notice," asking defendant Antonio Alcantar to amend his consent to VDRP, answer the complaint, and participate in the preparation of a joint status report. ECF No. 11.

On March 6, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for a default judgment against defendants Elena Alcantar and Razo, but on April 24, 2012, he filed a notice that the parties had settled the action. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff did not identify the parties to the settlement agreement, but did ask for thirty days in which to file dispositional documents. Plaintiff has received two extensions and has now requested a third.

Under Local Rule 160(b), the court may extend the period for filing dispositional documents "on good cause shown." Plaintiff says only that he "called the Defendant's [sic] requesting an update on the outstanding settlement agreement and funds. Defendant's son stated parents are on the verge of filing bankruptcy and has no knowledge when the settlement agreement and settlement funds will be sent to Plaintiff." ECF No. 22. His prior extension requests are similarly vague and abbreviated. See ECF No. 20 ("Plaintiff e-mailed the Defendant's requesting an update. . . . Plaintiff also called the Defendant's on two occasions. Plaintiff has yet to hear a response from the Defendant's . . .); ECF No. 18 ("Plaintiff and Defendants are in the process of finalizing a settlement agreement and require longer than the 30 day grace period"). Plaintiff has not established good cause for the third request for an extension.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that

1. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time in which to file dispositional documents (ECF No. 22) is denied; and

2. Plaintiff is directed to show cause within fourteen days of this order why this case should not be dismissed.