Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

ARREGUIN v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 2:15-cv-01540-GEB-EFB. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20151204797 Visitors: 1
Filed: Dec. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Settlement" on November 30, 2015, in which he states: the parties to the above-entitled action reached a settlement which disposes of this matter in its entirety. The parties are in the process of finalizing the settlement documents, and anticipate that they will be in a position to file a stipulation for dismissal of all claims against all parties, with prejudice, within the next 30 days. (Notice of Sett
More

ORDER

Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Settlement" on November 30, 2015, in which he states:

the parties to the above-entitled action reached a settlement which disposes of this matter in its entirety. The parties are in the process of finalizing the settlement documents, and anticipate that they will be in a position to file a stipulation for dismissal of all claims against all parties, with prejudice, within the next 30 days.

(Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 12.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than December 30, 2015. Failure to respond by this deadline may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. R. 160(b) ("A failure to file dispositional papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.").

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on December 21, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on February 1, 2016, in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. The status conference will remain on calendar, because the mere representation that a case has been settled does not justify vacating a scheduling proceeding. Cf. Callie v. Near, 829 F.2d 888, 890 (9th Cir. 1987) (indicating that a representation that claims have been settled does not necessarily establish the existence of a binding settlement agreement).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer