Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01607/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01607-3/pdf.json

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

PAUL CORTEZ MARTINEZ, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No.: 1:18-CV-01607-LJO-JLT

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DISMISSAL 

DOCUMENTS

(Doc. 22)

Two months ago, the parties notified the Court that the matter had settled (Doc. 20). In 

response, the Court gave the parties 60 days to dismiss the action (Doc. 21). Now, the plaintiffs have

filed a request seeking 60 more days to take the same action already ordered by the Court. (Doc. 22) 

In explanation, the plaintiffs report that the defense has not paid the amount agreed upon but admit 

that they have not surrendered the vehicle as agreed. Id.

The report fails to detail the efforts made in the last 60 days to resolve any outstanding points, 

how frequently counsel have discussed these terms and why, despite discussion, the points have not 

been resolved, why the parties filed a notice of settlement if, in fact, the case has not resolved, why 

counsel believes the outstanding issues will resolve in 60 days and why the plaintiffs continue to fail 

to surrender the vehicle. Absent specific details about why the case is not in a posture to be 

dismissed, the Court will not extend the dismissal deadline.

Case 1:18-cv-01607-JLT-CDB Document 23 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 3
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

Oddly, the plaintiffs’ counsel has filed nearly the exact same report and request for additional 

twice before in other cases. In Durham v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:17-cv-00596 JLT (Doc. 106), 

counsel reported the same exact situation—that “The Parties are still working to complete all of the 

terms of the settlement” and cited the desire to file a motion for fees and costs. As here, in Durham, 

the attorney requested an additional 60 days to take these actions. As here, the Durham report did not 

describe any impediments to finalizing the terms of the settlement or to filing the motion for fees.

In Flores v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-00427 JLT (Doc. 79), the plaintiff’s attorney 

offered the exact same situation as the one noted here. Again, the attorney reported the plaintiff had 

not surrendered the vehicle, “the Parties are still working to complete all of the terms of the settlement

. . .,” “the Parties are still working to complete all of the terms of the settlement . . .” and “Plaintiffs 

intend to file a Motion for Attorneys’ fees and Costs in the event the Parties are unable to resolve 

attorneys’ fees and costs informally.” (Case No. 1:17-cv-00427 JLT Doc. 79) This is the same 

language as in the current report1. Compare Case No. 1:17-cv-00427 JLT Doc. 79 with Doc. 22) Also, 

as in this case, there was no discussion in the Flores report of any impediments.

Consequently, because counsel has failed to provide sufficient detail for the Court to properly 

evaluate the request for 60 additional days to dismiss the case, the Court is left to conclude that this is 

simply the tactic employed by the plaintiff’s law firm to excuse the lack of diligence. Thus, the Court 

ORDERS:

1. The request for additional time to file the dismissal documents is DENIED; 

2. The motion for attorneys’ fees and costs or the stipulated dismissal SHALL be filed 

within 21 days. 

///

///

///

///

///

 

1 The only difference is that the report in this case contains a spelling error (Doc. 22 at 2).

Case 1:18-cv-01607-JLT-CDB Document 23 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 3
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

The parties are advised their failure to comply with this order will result in the 

imposition of sanctions, including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of the action without 

further notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01607-JLT-CDB Document 23 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3