Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00661/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00661-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRENDA PICKERN, 

Plaintiff,

v.

SHARI’S MANAGEMENT

CORPORATION dba SHARI’S

CAFE & PIES #141; MARSHALL

BELLE MILL, LLC; MJP BELLE

MILL, LLC; 803 CAMBRIA WAY,

LLC; MURRELL BELLE MILL,

LLC; WILSON BELLE MILL, LLC;

and IWF BELLE MILL, LP,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00661-GEB-CMK

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND 

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff filed a “Notice of Settlement” on June 25, 

2015, in which she states, “the aforementioned matter . . . has 

been resolved[, and t]he parties anticipate filing a Stipulation 

for Dismissal within eight weeks.” (Pl.’s Notice of Settlement, 

ECF No. 21.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no

later than August 21, 2015. Failure to respond by this deadline 

may be construed as consent to dismissal of this action without 

prejudice, and a dismissal order could be filed. See E.D. Cal. 

R. 160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional papers on the date 

prescribed by the Court may be grounds for sanctions.”).

Case 2:15-cv-00661-GEB-CMK Document 22 Filed 07/01/15 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

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 

July 20, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on October 

19, 2015, in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if 

this action is not otherwise dismissed.1 A joint status report 

shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2015

 

1 The status conference will remain on calendar, because the mere 

representation that a case has been settled does not justify vacating a 

scheduling proceeding. 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). 

Case 2:15-cv-00661-GEB-CMK Document 22 Filed 07/01/15 Page 2 of 2