Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00389/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00389-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards 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

ERIC AHRENS; MICHAEL ALLISON; )

BRYAN BAKKIE; CHAD BAUMANN; TROY )

BERGSTROM; ANDREW BONNER; JASON ) 2:05-cv-0389-GEB-GGH

BOSWORTH; DOUG BROWN; BRET )

BRZYSCZ; JOE CIPOV; KARL DYER; )

MICHAEL EASTER; ERICK EASTMAN; ) ORDER RE: MODIFICATION 

TINA EASTMAN; DAVID FAINGOLD; ) OF STATUS (PRETRIAL

BRANDON FERNANDEZ; DAVID FLOOD; ) SCHEDULING) ORDER

BRYAN FRITSCH; JAMES FUJITANI; )

PATRICK GANGUET; MARC GLYNN; RON )

GOODPASTER; BRUCE HAGLER; BRYAN )

HAYS; JOHN HELLIWELL; LEE )

HENDRICK; MATTHEW JANNEY; MICHAEL )

JONES; CHAD KATO; AARON LEAHY; )

MISSY MACDONALD; KEITH MARZOLF; )

MARK MILLER; STEFAN MOORE; KELBY )

NEWTON; PAUL NICHOLAS; )

CHRISTOPHER NOWICKI; DAVID )

ORTIZ; MICHAEL PENDERGRAFT; JAMES )

PLYMPTON; KATE QUARTAROLO; MARIA )

RICHARDSON; CLIFFORD RYLAND; MIKE )

RYLAND; ALEXANDRA SAKATA; JERMEY )

SCREETON; MERVYN SCREETON III; )

MICHAEL SHERLOCK; ASHLEY SMENTEK; )

AARON SPLAWN; CALVIN WALSTAD; )

WILLIAM YOUNG; and PATRICK ZERI, )

acting for themselves and others )

similarly situated, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) 

)

CITY OF ROSEVILLE, )

)

Defendant. )

)

Case 2:05-cv-00389-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 05/24/06 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

On May 18, 2006, the parties filed a “Notice of Settlement”

in which they assert they “have reached a tentative settlement

agreement.” The parties then “request this court stay all proceeding

pending final disposition of this case.” Further, “Plaintiffs . . .

request this Court grant the parties ninety (90) days from the date

of this notice to dismiss this case in its entirety with prejudice.”

The parties’ request for a stay of the proceeding is

denied, since the mere representation that an action has 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 an action has been settled

does not necessarily establish the existence of a binding settlement

agreement). But to provide the parties with additional time to work

towards settlement, the Scheduling Order is modified as follows:

discovery shall be completed by August 16, 2006, the last date for

hearing motions shall be October 16, 2006, and the final pretrial

conference is reset to commence at 11:00 a.m. on December 18, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00389-GEB-GGH Document 51 Filed 05/24/06 Page 2 of 2