Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00448/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00448-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
CACH LLC
Defendant
Capital One Bank, USA N.A
Defendant
Capital One Services, LLC
Defendant
Neuheisel Law Firm, P.C.
Defendant
Danial Oberg
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Danial Oberg, 

Plaintiff,

v.

Capital One Bank, USA N.A., 

a/k/a Capital One Services, 

LLC; CACH LLC; and Neuheisel 

Law Firm, P.C.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00448-GEB-EFB

ORDER RE: SETTLEMENT AND 

DISPOSITION

Plaintiff filed a Notice of Settlement on June 8, 2015, 

in which he states: “The parties have reached a settlement in the 

above-referenced case. The parties anticipate filing a 

stipulation for dismissal within the next twenty-one (21) days.” 

(Pl.’s Notice of Settlement, ECF No. 11.)

Therefore, a dispositional document shall be filed no 

later than June 29, 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.”).

Further, the Status Conference scheduled for hearing on 

June 22, 2015, is continued to commence at 9:00 a.m. on July 20, 

Case 2:15-cv-00448-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/11/15 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

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: June 10, 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-00448-GEB-EFB Document 12 Filed 06/11/15 Page 2 of 2