Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04128/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-04128-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-04128-LHK 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

STIPULATION

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

DEPUTY SHERIFFS' ASSOCIATION OF 

MONTEREY COUNTY,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCOTT MILLER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-CV-04128-LHK 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS, AND DIRECTING 

PARTIES TO FILE STIPULATION

Before the Court is a notice of settlement filed by the parties on August 17, 2015. ECF No. 

33 (“Notice”). In the Notice, the parties state that they “have reached a settlement” and request 

that the Court “stay all proceedings pending the submission of a request for dismissal of this case.” 

Id. at 1. The parties further state that “the settlement agreement has been circulated for execution 

by the parties,” and that after “obtaining approval and execution of the settlement agreement, the 

parties shall forthwith file with the Court a Request for Dismissal with Prejudice.” Id. at 1-2.

The parties first notified the Court of a settlement in this matter in a joint case management 

statement filed on June 12, 2015. ECF No. 30 (“JCMS”). In that JCMS, the parties stated they 

“tentatively agreed to settle this case, subject to negotiating over the language of a formal 

Case 5:14-cv-04128-LHK Document 34 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 14-CV-04128-LHK 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO STAY PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

STIPULATION

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

Northern District of California

settlement agreement.” Id. at 2. The parties further stated that they “expect to finalize and execute 

a settlement agreement resolving the claims in this lawsuit within the next 45 days.” Id. The 

parties requested that the Court vacate the case schedule “set forth in the Court’s Case 

Management Order.” Id.

On June 15, 2015, the Court issued an Order Continuing Case Management Conference. 

ECF No. 31. In that Order, the Court continued the case management conference, then scheduled 

for June 17, 2015, to August 19, 2015. Id. at 1. The Court further stated that “[u]ntil the parties file 

a joint stipulation of dismissal, the case schedule will remain as previously set.” Id.

On August 13, 2015, when the parties failed to timely file a joint case management 

statement pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), the Court filed an order directing the parties to 

file a joint case management statement by August 17, 2015 at 10 a.m. ECF No. 32. On August 17, 

2015, the parties filed the instant Notice. 

The Court hereby DENIES the parties’ request to stay proceedings pending the submission 

of a request for dismissal. The parties shall file, by Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 10 a.m., a

stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Until the parties file such a stipulation, the case 

management conference scheduled for August 19, 2015 at 2 p.m. remains as set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-04128-LHK Document 34 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2