Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01077/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01077-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 490
Nature of Suit: Cable/ Satellite TV
Cause of Action: 47:553 Unauthorized Reception of Cable Service

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADAMS, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-1077 KJM AC PS 

ORDER 

 On May 20, 2014, plaintiff filed a Second Notice of Settlement in the above-captioned 

case, and “anticipate[d]” that a stipulation of dismissal would be filed “promptly.” ECF No. 22.1 

The court accordingly vacated the status conference previously scheduled in the case. ECF 

No. 23. No stipulation of dismissal was ever filed, however, and the court thereupon ordered that 

the dispositional documents disposing of the case be filed within thirty days. ECF No. 24. 

 Plaintiff now moves to “re-open” the case, asserting that defendants have failed to adhere 

to the terms of the settlement agreement. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff further indicates that it intends to 

ask the court to use its “inherent power to enforce settlement agreements between the parties in 

pending cases.” ECF No. 25 at 4. This case has never been closed. The motion to “re-open” the 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s first notice of settlement was filed on December 18, 2013, and withdrawn on March 

18, 2014. See ECF Nos. 17 & 19. 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-KJM-AC Document 28 Filed 03/04/15 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

case will therefore be denied as unnecessary. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s motion to re-open the case (ECF No. 25), is DENIED as unnecessary. 

 2. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is re-set for April 8, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. in 

courtroom # 26 before the undersigned. All parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting 

without counsel. 

 3. The parties shall submit to the court and serve by mail on all other parties, no later than 

fourteen (14) days before the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference, a status report addressing 

the following matters: 

 a. Service of process; 

 b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 

 c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings; 

 d. Jurisdiction and venue; 

 e. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;2

 f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the 

proposed discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses; 

 g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut-off dates for discovery and 

law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial; 

 h. Special procedures, if any; 

 i. Estimated trial time; 

 j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the 

simplicity or complexity of the proceedings; 

 

2

 It appears that plaintiff intends to file a motion asking this court to enforce a settlement 

agreement that it has never seen, has never approved, and has never made a part of any order. 

Any such motion shall address the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit authority stating that 

“federal courts have ‘no inherent power to enforce settlement agreements entered into by parties 

litigating before them,’” unless the settlement has been “made part of” an order of the court, such 

as a dismissal order. K.C. ex rel. Erica C. v. Torlakson, 762 F.3d 963, 967 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (1994) and Arata v. Nu 

Skin Int'l, Inc., 96 F.3d 1265 (9th Cir. 1996)). 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-KJM-AC Document 28 Filed 03/04/15 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

 k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy; 

 l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; 

 m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter 

acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of her so acting, or whether they 

prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge; 

 n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this 

matter. 

 4. Counsel and defendant counsel are reminded of their continuing duty to notify 

chambers immediately of any settlement or other disposition (see Local Rule 160). In addition, 

the parties are cautioned that pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), opposition to the granting of a 

motion must be filed fourteen days preceding the noticed hearing date. 

 The Rule further provides that “[n]o party will be entitled to be heard in opposition to a 

motion at oral arguments if written opposition to the motion has not been timely filed by that 

party.” Moreover, Local Rule 230(j) provides that failure to appear may be deemed withdrawal 

of opposition to the motion or may result in sanctions. Finally, Local Rule 110 provides that 

failure to comply with the Local Rules “may be grounds for imposition of any and all sanctions 

authorized by statute or Rule or within the inherent power of the Court.” 

 5. Failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local Rules of Practice 

for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, or orders of this court, may 

result in dismissal of this action. Even parties without counsel will be expected to comply with 

the procedural rules. 

DATED: March 3, 2015 

Case 2:13-cv-01077-KJM-AC Document 28 Filed 03/04/15 Page 3 of 3