From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pittman v. Kamen

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 21, 2021
1:18-cv-01316 DAD GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2021)

Opinion

1:18-cv-01316 DAD GSA (PC)

06-21-2021

EDWARD SIMEON PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. KAMEN, Defendants.


ORDER AFTER STATUS CONFERENCE RE: SETTLEMENT (DOC. 36)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

On May 26, 2021, the Court held a settlement conference at which the parties came to a resolution. (Doc. 36) Before negotiations began, the Court was clear with Mr. Pittman that the decision to settle was his and that the Court would not pressure him to decide to settle or not settle because it was his case, and he would have to live with the decision. The Court reminded Mr. Pittman at least once again, that he had to decide the reasonableness of the settlement, and that it was his decision to make.

Once the parties agreed to a sum to settle the case, the parties went on the record. At that time, Mr. Pittman agreed the case had was advised that settling meant he would sign a settlement agreement, and he was advised that he could not be paid until he signed and returned the documents, including the payee data form. He was advised also that the case was settled, even if he later refused to sign the settlement agreement. Mr. Pittman stated that he had no questions about the terms of the settlement.

At the status conference re: settlement agreement, Mr. Pittman indicated that he felt he had no option than to settle and believed the settlement amount was not enough as explanation for his failure to sign the settlement agreement. The Court reminded Mr. Pittman of the facts set forth above. The Court also reiterated that the case was settled, and his refusal to sign the settlement agreement did not alter that fact. The Court also reminded Mr. Pittman that if he refused to sign the payee data sheet, he could not be paid. Based upon these facts, the Court ORDERS:

1. The stipulation to dismiss the action SHALL be filed no later than July 2, 2021 .

The parties are advised that failure to comply with this order may result in the Court imposing sanctions on the recalcitrant party, and the sanctions include the involuntary dismissal of the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Pittman v. Kamen

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 21, 2021
1:18-cv-01316 DAD GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2021)
Case details for

Pittman v. Kamen

Case Details

Full title:EDWARD SIMEON PITTMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. KAMEN, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 21, 2021

Citations

1:18-cv-01316 DAD GSA (PC) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 21, 2021)