Emery v. Gen. Motors Co.

Full title: SHAUNA EMERY and JOSEPH KRAFT, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jan 31, 2012

2:11-cv-00418-GEB-EFB (E.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2012)

Opinion

2:11-cv-00418-GEB-EFB

01-31-2012

SHAUNA EMERY and JOSEPH KRAFT, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, Defendant.*

GARLAND E. BURRELL

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND DISPOSITION

Plaintiffs filed a "Notice of Settlement" on January 30, 2012, in which they state, "the parties[ have] successful[ly] resol[ved the] instant matter." (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiffs request the Court "retain jurisdiction over the matter for a period of no less than sixty (60) days . . . for the full execution of the terms of the settlement agreement[.]" Id.

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no later than March 30, 2012. 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 final pretrial conference and trial will remain on calendar in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed.²

2 The final pretrial 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).
--------

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_______________________

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge