Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00004/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00004-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

Terra and Jerry Bell, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

Maury Cobb, Attorney at Law, 

LLC; and DOES 1-10, 

inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00004-GEB-DAD

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND 

DISPOSITION

Plaintiffs filed a “Notice of Settlement” on March 18, 

2015, in which they state:

the parties in the above-captioned case have 

reached a settlement. The Plaintiffs 

anticipate filing a notice of withdrawal of 

Complaint and voluntary dismissal of this 

action with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 41(a) within 30 days.

The parties hereby further request that 

this honorable Court provide a period of 60 

days within which to complete the settlement 

and file a dismissal of the action.

(Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 6.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no 

later than May 18, 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-00004-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 03/24/15 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 

April 20, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on June 8, 

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: March 24, 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-00004-GEB-DAD Document 7 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 2