Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01621/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01621-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

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

On November 1, 2016, the parties notified the Court that “the parties have reached a settlement 

that will resolve this case in its entirety.” (Doc. 51) Thereafter, the Court ordered the guardians ad 

litem to file the petitions for approval of the minors’ compromise no later than November 23, 2016. 

(Doc. 52) On November 15, 2016, the guardians ad litem sought an extension of time to December 

23, 2016 to file the petitions because the parties were continuing to work out the details of the 

settlement. (Doc. 53) The Court granted this request.

Once again, the guardians ad litem seek an additional extension of time—to April 3, 2017—to 

file the petitions for approval of the minors’ compromise. (Doc. 55) They report, “The parties and 

their structured settlement consultants have been diligently working on the settlement terms and are 

still reviewing and discussing the terms of the large annuities for both minors.” Id. However,

concluding that they are working diligently is not the same thing as demonstrating diligence. 

Moreover, given that the settlement has been pending for more than 60 days, the Court is at a loss to 

SHAWN J. PAREGIEN, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

WILSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01621 AWI JLT 

ORDER DENYING THE SECOND REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF THE MINORS’ 

COMPROMISE

(Doc. 55)

Case 1:15-cv-01621-AWI-JLT Document 56 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 2
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

understand why whatever impediments have not been resolved and causes the Court to question 

whether, in fact, settlement has been achieved or if, in truth, this matter has relegated to the “backburner.” The children deserve more and the Court presumes the guardians understand this. Thus, the 

request for the extension of time to file the minors’ compromise is DENIED. 

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for the extension of time to April 3, 2017 to file the minors’ compromise is 

DENIED;

2. The petitions for the minors’ compromise SHALL be filed no later than March 3, 

2017;

3. Counsel SHALL file joint reports on February 10, 2017 and February 24, 2017

setting out exactly what they are doing to complete this settlement. These status reports SHALL

provide detailed information so that the Court can make a determination whether, in fact, counsel are 

working diligently. 

Counsel and the parties are advised that their failure to strictly comply with this order 

shall be grounds for the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01621-AWI-JLT Document 56 Filed 02/02/17 Page 2 of 2