Sehic v. Anderson

Full title: EMIR SEHIC, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON; MAYUKA S. ANDERSON…

Court: United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: Jul 26, 2013

2:12-cv-3030 DAD (E.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2013)

Opinion

EMIR SEHIC, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM VAN ANDERSON; MAYUKA S. ANDERSON, Defendants. No. 2:12-cv-3030 DAD United States District Court, E.D. California. July 26, 2013

          ORDER

          DALE A. DROZD, Magistrate Judge.

         Each of the parties in the above-captioned case has consented to proceed before the assigned magistrate judge. By order filed March 12, 2013, the action was reassigned to the undersigned.

         On May 24, 2013, the parties appeared for hearing of plaintiff's April 12, 2013 motion to amend (Doc. No. 18) and April 23, 2013 motion for a preliminary injunction. (Doc. No. 19.) At that hearing a settlement conference was held, the parties reached a settlement agreement and the terms and conditions of that settlement agreement were placed on the record.

         On July 26, 2013, the matter again came before the court for status conference following plaintiff's June 4, 2013 filing of a motion to amend his complaint.¹ (Doc. No. 26.) Plaintiff Emir Sehic appeared telephonically on his own behalf. Defendant William Van Anderson appeared telephonically on his own behalf and defendant Mayuka Anderson appeared telephonically on her own behalf.

1 Although plaintiff's filing failed to comply with the Local Rules, and could have been denied for that reason alone, the undersigned nonetheless set the matter for status conference because plaintiff's filing indicated that the parties may have had a dispute with respect to the terms of the parties' settlement agreement placed on the record on May 24, 2013.

         Upon consideration of the parties' arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the reasons set forth in detail on the record, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

         1. Plaintiff's April 12, 2013 motion to amend (Doc. No. 18) is denied as having been rendered moot by the settlement agreement reached on May 24, 2013;

         2. Plaintiff's April 23, 2013 motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 19) is denied as having been rendered moot by the settlement agreement reached on May 24, 2013;

         3. Plaintiff's May 16, 2013 motion to continue (Doc. No. 22) is denied as moot;

         4. Plaintiff's June 4, 2013 motion to amend (Doc. No. 26) is denied as improperly brought in light of the settlement agreement reached on May 24, 2013;

         5. Within fourteen days of the date of this order plaintiff shall file either a copy of the parties' signed settlement agreement and plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant thereto or a motion seeking to withdraw from the parties' settlement agreement that complies with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules; and

         6. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with this order may result in an order dismissing this action for lack of prosecution.