Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01436/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-01436-11/pdf.json

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZEALIN BARTEK, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF VISALIA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:22-cv-01436-JLT-SAB

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE AND DIRECTING CLERK 

OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE AND 

ADJUST DOCKET TO REFLECT 

VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

(ECF Nos. 36, 39)

On December 3, 2024, Plaintiffs moved the Court to continue the deadline to file 

dispositional documents to January 3, 2025. (ECF No. 34.) That date came and went, and the 

Court issued an order to show cause as to why sanctions should not be imposed for the parties’ 

failure to timely file dispositional documents. (ECF No. 36.) On January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs

filed a stipulation of dismissal (ECF No. 39), and on January 8, 2025, counsel for Defendants 

filed a declaration responding to the order to show cause. (ECF No. 40.)

In the declaration, Defendants provide the Court with a timeline of the events with an 

implied justification for the late dispositional documents being that the terms of the settlement 

agreement between the parties gave Plaintiffs five business days to file dispositional documents 

following receipt of settlement funds. (Id.)

While it appears that Defendants are aware, the Court nonetheless advises the parties that 

once the terms of a settlement agreement are finalized and the settlement agreement is signed by 

the parties, dismissal of this action is not dependent on performance of the agreement but rather

Case 1:22-cv-01436-JLT-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/10/25 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

the settlement itself. 

What is troubling is that the Court granted the extension to January 3, 2025, per 

Plaintiffs’ request. (See ECF No. 34.) Thus, the Court is puzzled why Plaintiffs chose not to 

comply with a court order, seemingly instead relying on the terms of the settlement agreement. 

In the future, should Plaintiffs appear in federal court, the Court admonishes them that they must 

comply with court orders notwithstanding terms in a settlement agreement. In the alternative, the 

Court notes that Plaintiffs could have filed a motion seeking a brief extension of time to file 

dispositional documents. However, failing to meet a court ordered deadline or failing to respond 

to a court order is unacceptable. 

Nevertheless, the Court hereby DISCHARGES the January 6, 2025 order to show cause. 

(ECF No. 36.) 

In light of the stipulation (ECF No. 39), this action has been terminated, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

41(a)(1)(A)(ii); Wilson v. City of San Jose, 111 F.3d 688, 692 (9th Cir. 1997), and has been 

dismissed with prejudice. Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is hereby DIRECTED to close the 

file in this case and adjust the docket to reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 

41(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2025 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:22-cv-01436-JLT-SAB Document 41 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 2