Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00554-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 315
Nature of Suit: Airplane Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILYN GOETZKE, widower, )

individually and as personal )

representative/successor in )

interest on behalf of the )

estate and heirs of LOREN )

GOETZKE, deceased; GENE )

GOETZKE; and GARY GOETZKE, )

) 2:03-cv-0554-GEB-JFM

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

) ORDER

SIKORSKY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION,)

a Delaware corporation; )

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a )

New York corporation; and )

ROTAIR INDUSTRIES, INC., a )

Connecticut corporation, )

)

Defendants. )

)

ADRIAN VILLARUZ, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

SIKORSY AIRCRAFT CORPORATION; )

GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION; )

ROTAIR INDUSTRIES, INC., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

Over the course of three days the Plaintiffs in this action

filed three “Notice[s] of Settlement.” Plaintiffs’ notices, when

taken together, represent that all claims against all Defendants have

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 152 Filed 09/02/05 Page 1 of 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

2

been settled. In light of these notices, the parties’ pending motions

for summary judgment are deemed withdrawn. 

The parties have until 4:30 p.m. on October 14, 2005, to

file a document or documents that effect dismissal of this action. 

See L.R. 16-160(b). Until such documents are filed the Rule 16

Scheduling Order dates will not be vacated; however, due to the

parties’ apparent desire to avoid further litigation the Final

Pretrial Conference will be continued to October 31, 2005, at 1:30

p.m. 

Final Pretrial Conference and Trial dates will remain on

calendar, because the mere representation that an action has been

settled does not justify removal of the action from a district court’s

trial docket. 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). Vacating the dates established in a scheduling order when

there may, in fact, not be an enforceable settlement agreement “would

undermine the court's ability to control its docket [and] disrupt the

agreed-upon course of the litigation.” Johnson v. Mammoth

Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). See also U.S.

v. 1948 South Martin Luther King Dr., 270 F.3d 1102, 1110 (7th Cir.

2001) (“Courts have a legitimate interest in ensuring that parties

abide by scheduling orders to ensure prompt and orderly litigation.”). 

Therefore, if all claims are not dismissed on or before October 14, 

//

//

//

//

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 152 Filed 09/02/05 Page 2 of 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

3

2005, the parties then remaining in the action are required to file a

Joint Pretrial Statement seven days before the now rescheduled Final

Pretrial Conference. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:03-cv-00554-GEB -JFM Document 152 Filed 09/02/05 Page 3 of 3