Tucker v. British Airways PLC, 2:16-cv-00618-RAJ. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190130g40
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jan. 29, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion, which seeks to reopen this action to allow the parties to complete settlement. Dkt. # 56. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff moved to renote this motion for consideration and the Clerk reset the noting date to September 14, 2018. Dkt. # 57. Plaintiff sought to reopen the case for 90-180 days to allow the parties to complete
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT RICHARD A. JONES , District Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion, which seeks to reopen this action to allow the parties to complete settlement. Dkt. # 56. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff moved to renote this motion for consideration and the Clerk reset the noting date to September 14, 2018. Dkt. # 57. Plaintiff sought to reopen the case for 90-180 days to allow the parties to complete ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REOPEN ACTION PENDING COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT
RICHARD A. JONES, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion, which seeks to reopen this action to allow the parties to complete settlement. Dkt. # 56. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff moved to renote this motion for consideration and the Clerk reset the noting date to September 14, 2018. Dkt. # 57.
Plaintiff sought to reopen the case for 90-180 days to allow the parties to complete settlement. Dkt. # 56 at 1. On August 24, 2018, Plaintiff's counsel informed the Court that Plaintiff was in possession of the settlement release, which upon execution, would be transferred to Defendants' counsel in exchange for a settlement check. Dkt. # 57. Since that time, the parties have not communicated to the Court any issues with these last steps in settling their dispute. As such, the Court concludes that reopening the action is unnecessary and DENIES Plaintiff's Motion without prejudice.
Source: Leagle
