From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hughes v. Claypool

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 27, 2011
Case No. 1:06-cv-00876 LJO JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 1:06-cv-00876 LJO JLT (PC) Doc. 54

09-27-2011

ANTHONY LLOYD HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. CLAYPOOL, et al., Defendants.


ORDER AFTER NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

On September 26, 2011, Defendant filed the instant motion, requesting an additional thirty-day extension of the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. 54) According to Defendant, the parties have entered into a settlement agreement and Plaintiff has signed both the agreement and a voluntary dismissal. Id. at 3. However, due to delays in providing a Plaintiff's a receipt for settlement property, and Defendant's agreement not to file the request for dismissal until the receipt is received by Plaintiff, the request for dismissal has not yet been filed. Id. However, Defendant " is confident that this minor issue will be resolved" within two weeks time. Id.

Good cause appearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Pursuant to Local Rule 160(b), no later than October 21, 2011, Defendant is ORDERED to file the appropriate papers to dismiss this action in its entirety;
2. All pending dates are VACATED.

Failure to comply with this order may be grounds for the imposition of sanctions on counsel or parties who contributed to violation of this order. See Local Rule 160 and Local Rule 272.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hughes v. Claypool

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 27, 2011
Case No. 1:06-cv-00876 LJO JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2011)
Case details for

Hughes v. Claypool

Case Details

Full title:ANTHONY LLOYD HUGHES, Plaintiff, v. CLAYPOOL, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Sep 27, 2011

Citations

Case No. 1:06-cv-00876 LJO JLT (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 27, 2011)