Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01347/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01347-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS MAZZEI,

Plaintiff,

v.

GEO SECURE SERVICES, LLC, et al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB

ORDER DENYING PARTIES’

STIPULATED REQUEST TO 

CONTINUE DEADLINE TO FILE 

DISPOSITIONAL DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 43)

7-DAY DEADLINE

Background

On October 18, 2024, the parties filed a notice that they had reached a settlement of 

Plaintiff’s individual claims and that “a formal settlement agreement is being circulated for review 

and signatures.” (Doc. 41 at 2). The parties also reported their intention to file a stipulated 

dismissal “[o]nce the specified terms in the agreement are performed.” Id. The Court ordered the 

parties to file dispositional documents within 21 days. (Doc. 42).

Pending before the Court is the parties’ “joint status report” in which they represent “the 

formal settlement agreement is still being circulated for review and signatures” and request an 

additional 60 days within which to file dispositional documents. (Doc. 43 at 2).

Discussion

Good cause does not warrant granting a two-month extension of the deadline to file 

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 44 Filed 11/07/24 Page 1 of 3
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

dispositional documents to facilitate the signing of a settlement agreement that, according to the 

parties, was “circulated for review and signatures” three or more weeks ago. See (Doc. 41).

Moreover, good cause does not support delaying any further the filing of dispositional 

documents until after performance of the terms of the settlement agreement is complete. That is 

because this case was removed to federal court based on the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) 

and the removing Defendants’ representation that the amount in controversy of the putative class 

action exceeds $5,000,000. See (Doc. 1). With the parties’ report now that they have settled only 

Plaintiff’s individual claims and intend to dismiss all other claims, this Court in all likelihood lacks 

jurisdiction over the action.

Under these circumstances, the Court declines the parties’ unstated but implied invitation 

for the Court to keep this case open while they perform the terms of their settlement agreement

(e.g., Kay v. Board of Educ. of City of Chicago, 547 F.3d 736, 737 (7th Cir. 2008) (“The normal 

remedy for a failure to abide by a settlement of federal litigation is a suit on the settlement contract. 

Such a claim arises under state law and must proceed in state court”)) because the parties have not 

shown that exercising jurisdiction over the parties’ settlement agreement is “essential to the conduct 

of federal-court business.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 381 (1994).

Since it is clear from the parties’ filings that they have settled their respective claims, the 

claims are subject to dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) even though the 

parties have not complied with this Court’s order to file dispositional documents. This dismissal 

order could issue since “literal compliance with the stipulation requirement has not been required 

where the agreement of all parties is apparent.” Garber v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 570 F.3d 

1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation and quotations omitted). Accord, Eitel v. McCool, 

782 F.2d 1470, 1472-73 (9th Cir. 1986) (explaining that “[t]he court reasonably concluded that the 

parties had the requisite mutual intent to dismiss the action with prejudice” when the court “f[ound] 

that the parties’ ... representations to the court agreeing to a dismissal with prejudice constituted a 

voluntary stipulated dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(ii)”).

However, dismissal at this juncture is not appropriate as it is apparent from the parties’

pleadings that they have worked diligently to reach a negotiated resolution. Instead, the Court will 

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 44 Filed 11/07/24 Page 2 of 3
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

3

grant the parties an additional seven (7) days to meet and confer prior to filing an appropriate 

stipulation for dismissal.

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall file a stipulation of dismissal 

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) within seven (7) days of entry of this order.

Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-01347-JLT-CDB Document 44 Filed 11/07/24 Page 3 of 3