Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00537/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00537-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

) 2:05-cv-0537-GEB-GGH

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) 

) ORDER

ROGERS-QUINN CONSTRUCTION, INC., )

a California corporation, ) 

)

Defendant. )

)

ROGERS-QUINN CONSTRUCTION, INC., a )

California corporation, )

)

Counter-Claimant, )

)

v. )

)

SKANSKA USA BUILDING, INC., a )

Delaware corporation, )

)

Counter-Defendant. )

)

On September 12, 2005, Plaintiff filed a letter representing

that the parties have reached a tentative settlement agreement as to

their claims and cross-claims. Plaintiff also requested that its

motion for summary adjudication and preliminary injunction, filed

May 26, 2005, and set for argument on September, 26, 2005, be taken

Case 2:05-cv-00537-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 09/13/05 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

off calendar. In light of the Plaintiff’s representations and

request, the motion is taken off calendar; moreover, the motion is

deemed withdrawn. 

The parties have until 4:30 p.m. on October 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.

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: September 13, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00537-GEB-GGH Document 26 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 2