Opinion
CV 22-5706 FMO (MARx)
01-19-2024
R.H., a minor, by and through his legal guardian, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE: DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge
On January 16, 2024, the parties filed a Notice of Conditional Settlement and Request to Vacate All Current Trial and Related Dates (Dkt. 47), seeking a stay of all proceedings pending approval of a settlement by the Los Angeles County Claims Board and the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. (See id.).
In the court's experience with similar requests based on conditional settlements requiring county board or city council approval, staying such cases requires the continued commitment of judicial resources to monitoring the cases and ensuring compliance with requirements to file status reports. It also increases the burden on the parties to have their counsel attend status conferences, file status reports, or seek dismissal of the stayed case upon resolution of the matter.
It appears that the more efficient approach is to dismiss this action without prejudice to either party moving to reopen nunc pro tunc in the event that further court intervention becomes necessary. The court perceives no practical difference between this approach and the relief requested by the parties, apart from eliminating the need for future monitoring or action if the parties honor their agreement, as the court expects them to.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT this action is dismissed without prejudice to any party seeking to vacate this Order and reopen the action nunc pro tunc in the event that the settlement does not receive approval by the relevant governmental authorities. Dated this 19th day of January, 2024.