Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03743/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03743-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIE SU,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 12-cv-03743-JST 

ORDER

Re: ECF No. 215

On December 15, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to “submit whatever documents are 

required to finalize their settlement . . . .” ECF No. 215. Instead of filing a motion seeking some 

form of relief, on January 4, 2016, the parties hand-delivered a letter to the Court attaching the 

settlement agreement and “request[ing] that the Court approve the settlement agreement.” The 

Court placed the letter and accompanying settlement agreement on the Court’s ECF docket. ECF 

No. 216. An attorney for Plaintiff then called the clerk’s office and asked if the letter could be 

removed, as the parties had intended to lodge the settlement agreement with the Court, rather than 

file it. 

The requests contained in the parties’ letter are denied without prejudice. A request for 

relief must be submitted in a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1) (“A request for a court order must be 

made by motion.”); see also Civ. L.R. 7-1(a) (same); Plaskon v. Pub. Hosp. Dist. No. 1 of King 

Cty., No. C06-0367RSL, 2008 WL 249019, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 28, 2008) (“Plaintiff 

submitted two requests for relief from the Court as letters, despite the Court's warning that any 

such request must be contained in a motion and otherwise comply with the Local Rules.”); 

Mortensen v. Nevens, No. 2:10-CV-02263-KJD, 2011 WL 772885, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 25, 2011)

(“A letter, again, is not a motion, and a letter should not be docketed as a motion[.]”). There are 

exceptions to this general rule ‒ by prior order of the Court or the Court’s standing orders ‒ but 

Case 3:12-cv-03743-JST Document 217 Filed 01/07/16 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

these exceptions do not apply here. 

It is unclear why the parties submitted their settlement to the Court for approval. Court 

approval of a settlement is not ordinarily required. Donnarumma v. Barracuda Tanker Corp., 79 

F.R.D. 455, 458 (C.D. Cal. 1978). If the parties want to submit their settlement agreement for 

Court approval, they should do so in a motion. They should also explain the statutory or other 

basis for their belief that Court approval is required, and identify the factors the Court should 

apply in making its determination. 

If the parties believe that their motion, or any order the Court might issue respecting that 

motion, should be sealed, the parties should file a motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and 

this Court’s Standing Order Governing Administrative Motions to File Materials Under Seal. 

They should not request such relief in a phone call to Clerk’s Office staff. 

The letter at ECF No. 216 is stricken from the docket. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: January 7, 2016

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-03743-JST Document 217 Filed 01/07/16 Page 2 of 2