Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01091/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01091-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Heather Robinson
Plaintiff
Starbucks Corporation
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Plaintiff appears to misspeak when referencing “motion 1

hearings” since the only motion hearing scheduled was set for

December 17, 2007; Defendant appears to recognize this since on

December 4, 2007, Defendant filed a notice taking that matter

“off calendar.”

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER ROBINSON, )

) 2:06-cv-01091-GEB-KJM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT,

) DISPOSITION, AND

STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington) SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULING

State Corporation, )

)

Defendant. )

)

On December 3, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Case

Settlement in which she states “that this action has been settled” and

“requests that the Court set aside all briefing schedules and motion

hearings for a period of thirty-days so that the parties can execute a

general release and provide to the Court a Stipulated Request for

Dismissal with Prejudice.” Therefore, in accordance with what is 1

deemed to be the parties’ agreement, the hearing date for the motion

previously scheduled to be heard on December 17, 2007 shall be

February 11, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., provided that motion is timely

renoticed for hearing on that date; the final pretrial conference is

rescheduled to commence at 2:30 p.m. on April 21, 2008; and a

Case 2:06-cv-01091-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 12/06/07 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

The Rule 16 scheduling order is not vacated, because 2

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). 

2

dispositional document shall be filed no later than January 2, 2008.2

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 L.R. 16-160(b) (“A failure to file dispositional

papers on the date prescribed by the Court may be grounds for

sanctions.”). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-01091-GEB -KJM Document 24 Filed 12/06/07 Page 2 of 2