Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02096/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02096-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARSHALL LOSKOT, an individual; )

and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, ) 2:04-cv-02096-GEB-CMK

EDUCATION, SERVICES: HELPING )

YOU HELP OTHERS, a California )

public benefit corporation, ) ORDER RE SETTLEMENT

) AND DISPOSITION

Plaintiffs, ) 

)

v. )

)

GREEN VALLEY FORD; ROBERT STARKS, )

an individual dba GREEN VALLEY )

FORD, SUZUKI, DODGE & MAZDA, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On October 6, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement

representing that the parties have reached a settlement agreement that

“fully resolves the claims herein.” Plaintiffs also requested that

“all matters currently on calendar be vacated.” 

The parties have until 4:30 p.m. on November 3, 2005, to

file a document or documents that effect dismissal of this action. 

See L.R. 16-160(b). Until such documents are filed the Rule 16

Scheduling Order dates will not be vacated.

Case 2:04-cv-02096-GEB-CMK Document 12 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Rule 16 Scheduling Order dates will remain on calendar

because the mere representation that an action has been settled does

not justify removal of the action from a district court’s trial

docket. 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). Vacating the dates established in a scheduling order when

there may, in fact, not be an enforceable settlement agreement “would

undermine the court's ability to control its docket [and] disrupt the

agreed-upon course of the litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). See also U.S.

v. 1948 South Martin Luther King Dr., 270 F.3d 1102, 1110 (7th Cir.

2001) (“Courts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that parties

abide by scheduling orders to ensure prompt and orderly litigation.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02096-GEB-CMK Document 12 Filed 10/06/05 Page 2 of 2